toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

Opera denied !
by Farid Hamjavar 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

Greetings, Just checking .... Is it me or now.netapp.com denies access to those of us using Opera web browser? I use Opera 5.12 (the windows version) and all cookies stuff and all SSL stuff (V2 and V3) are turned on and enabled. here are error messages: http://now.netapp.com/nowsmforms/login.fcc The certificate's chain was not ordered properly. Thanks, Farid

2 1

busy snapshot
by Leonard, Roger 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

my veritas server crashed during an ndmp backup of my 740 and there is a snapshot_for_backup that is busy and will not let me delete it. it says it is in use by dump or cifs share. any idea how to clear this out? Roger D. Leonard

1 0

RE: virus protection on Filer
by Ziller, Frank 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

Take a look at Symantec CarrierScan. -----Original Message----- From: ken pigg [mailto:kenp@uptime.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:40 PM To: 'Edward Lee'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: virus protection on Filer http://www.netapp.com/partners/catalog.cgi/company/178 kp -----Original Message----- From: Edward Lee [mailto:edwardlee60@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: virus protection on Filer Can anyone recommend a good antivirus program that can do real-time scans of the Filer. I have a 760 and running version 6.1 Thanks, -Eddie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

RE: virus protection on Filer
by Benn, Paul 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

You can get a solution specifically for the filer from the following vendors: McAfee Symantec Trend Micro Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Edward Lee [mailto:edwardlee60@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:33 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: virus protection on Filer Can anyone recommend a good antivirus program that can do real-time scans of the Filer. I have a 760 and running version 6.1 Thanks, -Eddie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

RE: virus protection on Filer
by ken pigg 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

http://www.netapp.com/partners/catalog.cgi/company/178 kp -----Original Message----- From: Edward Lee [mailto:edwardlee60@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:33 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: virus protection on Filer Can anyone recommend a good antivirus program that can do real-time scans of the Filer. I have a 760 and running version 6.1 Thanks, -Eddie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

virus protection on Filer
by Edward Lee 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

Can anyone recommend a good antivirus program that can do real-time scans of the Filer. I have a 760 and running version 6.1 Thanks, -Eddie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Solaris/Oracle/filer tuning question
by Chris Lamb 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

Howdy, all. This is more a Solaris question, but since there's a filer involved and y'all are so helpful, I'll start with you guys. :-) The setup: Sun E4500, Solaris 7 HW11/99+patches, GigE NetApp F760, 5.3.6R2, GigE Oracle 8.1.6.x Two volumes for Oracle, NFSv3/UDP, 32K rsize/wsize The problem(s): I/O from any single Oracle process tops out around 3-4MB/sec; Even with 'disk_asynch_io = false' in init.ora set to false, we are getting sporadic and seemingly nonsensical "resource temporarily unavailable" errors (had a case open for this one). The question: Are any of the Solaris kernel NFS tunables useful in increasing that apparent limit? Specifically: nfs:nfs3_max_threads nfs:nfs3_async_clusters nfs:nfs3_nra The DBA and our NetApp reps/support team have gone over our config, and things are generally stable. After turning off asynch_io we noticed a slight performance hit, but thought that the annoying "resource temporarily unavailable" errors had been solved. We had another one yesterday, first time in almost two months. :-/ In diagnosing the performance sluggishness, we noticed that for a non-partitioned full table scan a single Oracle "reader" process was limited to about 2.5-4MB/sec, while a full scan of a partitioned table (using 6 readers) was getting 18-22MB/sec. (Obvious workaround: increase the number of readers and writers, and partition the table with the bottleneck...) In each case, Solaris iostat was claiming that the NFS mount was "100% busy", although response times were generally in the sub-6ms range and the filer's sysstat showed less than 20% cpu usage (this is a production box, so I can't completely isolate the load for our testing). For _reads_ I just can't figure out why Solaris - or Oracle itself - are throttling performance like this... I've clocked > 50MB/sec reads in plain old NFS tests (bonnie, cpio, etc), and I think it's generally clear when we've saturated the PCI bus on the filer. This Oracle bottleneck is a mystery, but now I'm wondering if the two problems are related. The Solaris Tunable Parameters Reference Manual says of the "nfs:nfs3_max_threads" knob: "Controls the number of kernel threads that perform asynchronous I/O for the NFS version 3 _client_. [emphasis mine] Since NFS is based on RPC and RPC is inherently synchronous, separate execution contexts are required to perform NFS operations that are asynchronous from the calling thread." The default pool of threads is set to 8. There's some indication that this may be a _per filesystem_ setting, and is not global to all NFS client activity on the machine. Even if that's the case, then 8 threads per mount point might still be fairly restrictive on an 8-cpu machine, given the fat pipe and headroom still available on the filer. I generally shy away from mucking about with Solaris internals ("this isn't your father's SunOS" :-) but if that's what it takes to boost performance I'm all for it. Has anyone running in a similar environment had to tweak any Solaris kernel tunables? Are there other Oracle/NetApp tuning hints not discussed in the whitepapers on the NOW site? My DBA and I would be most grateful for any warnings/suggestions/hints. :-) I'll be happy to provide more detail off-list, then summarize results if anyone else is interested. Thanks, -- Chris -- Chris Lamb, Unix Guy MeasureCast, Inc. 503-241-1469 x247 <skeezics(a)measurecast.com>

1 0

RE: DOT 6.1.1 + NBU 4.6 == /vol/vol0 path may not exist
by Smith, A Michael (CS) 20 Aug '01

20 Aug '01

Is /vol/vol0 on your machine a snapmirror destination? If so try backing up an existing snapshot as ndmpd will not be able to create a snapshot for dump on a snapmirrored volume. The path that I use in the Backup Policy Mgmt interface under the policy of my choice I simply change the entry from "/vol/vol2" to "/vol/vol2/.snapshot/hourly.0" and bada-bing it worked. If it is not snapmirrored then another test to try would be to run a manual dump of /vol/vol0 and send the output to null: dump 0f null /vol/vol0 The output of that command will be useful for NetApp support folks. Mike Smith -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:41 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: DOT 6.1.1 + NBU 4.6 == /vol/vol0 path may not exist Anyone else having difficulty backing up /vol/vol0 with Veritas after upgrading to DOT 6.1.1? We get the following error message: 0997254443 1 4 8 claxton 750651 750651 0 fuelcell bptm WRN - Cannot backup filepath /vol/vol0, NDMP_HALT_INTERNAL_ERROR occurred (path may not exist), skipping We also found this upon deeper investigation: Aug 10 21:02:15 GMT [ndmpd:52]: ReplySequence 0 Aug 10 21:02:15 GMT [ndmpd:52]: Error NDMP_NO_ERR Aug 10 21:02:15 GMT [ndmpd:52]: Log message: Cannot backup WAFL directory -- memory management problem. Here's the interesting rub: other volumes on that machine (/vol/root and /vol/vol1) backup just fine. /vol/vol0 won't backup to a local tape drive, or remote via NDMP 3-way. This has manifested itself on more than one machine, but not all 6.1.1 filers. Really strange. We're submitting a case to NetApp, but just wondering if we're the only ones seeing this problem. -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 Storage Lead (NAS/SAN) Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

2 1

DOT 6.1.1 + NBU 4.6 == /vol/vol0 path may not exist
by Jeffrey Krueger 20 Aug '01

20 Aug '01

Anyone else having difficulty backing up /vol/vol0 with Veritas after upgrading to DOT 6.1.1? We get the following error message: 0997254443 1 4 8 claxton 750651 750651 0 fuelcell bptm WRN - Cannot backup filepath /vol/vol0, NDMP_HALT_INTERNAL_ERROR occurred (path may not exist), skipping We also found this upon deeper investigation: Aug 10 21:02:15 GMT [ndmpd:52]: ReplySequence 0 Aug 10 21:02:15 GMT [ndmpd:52]: Error NDMP_NO_ERR Aug 10 21:02:15 GMT [ndmpd:52]: Log message: Cannot backup WAFL directory -- memory management problem. Here's the interesting rub: other volumes on that machine (/vol/root and /vol/vol1) backup just fine. /vol/vol0 won't backup to a local tape drive, or remote via NDMP 3-way. This has manifested itself on more than one machine, but not all 6.1.1 filers. Really strange. We're submitting a case to NetApp, but just wondering if we're the only ones seeing this problem. -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 Storage Lead (NAS/SAN) Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

1 1

Benchmarks
by Joe Luchtenberg 20 Aug '01

20 Aug '01

SPEC pulled the benchmark (SPECsfs97) that NetApp has used for so long as the yardstick for their screaming performance (see http://www.spec.org/osg/sfs97/sfs97_notice.html). As far as I can tell, there is no replacement from SPEC. Curiosity question: Do any of you out there in toasterland use published benchmark statistics in order to at least narrow the field when considering future storage options? If so, how does this development effect you? 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

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