toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Netbackup problem logs
by Fayek, Ahmed 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

Hello All I'm using Netbackup to backup Netapp servers ( NDMP). After first time backup i received the following error in the Netbackup problem logs email : TIME SERVER/CLIENT TEXT 08/14/2001 16:03:33 alpha toast1 put_ino: file 4M5TTVH.iccel_1 name cannot begin with name array terminator character 08/14/2001 16:03:33 alpha toast1 ndmp_bpfsmap_dir: put_ino returned -1 alpha = Netbackup server toast1 = Netapp filer Anybody got idea about this error ? is it serious ? Nice day All Ahmed

1 0

resizing boot volume
by neil lehrer 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

i am going to redo my boot volume. no data to save. steps: create new volume /vol/vol1 vol create /vol/vol1 2 export /vol/vol1 copy /etc from vol0 to vol1 make vol1 the root volume vol options /vol/vo11 root reboot if vol1 shows as the root volume then vol offline /vol/vol0 reboot vol destroy /vol/vol0 rename back to default root vol name vol rename /vol/vol1 /vol/vol0 add some disks back to the new vol0 vol add /vol/vol0 3 am i missing anything? thanks. -- regards

2 2

RE: /net/filer/blah vs. /net/filer/vol/vol0/blah
by Mike Sphar 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

I'm only running 6.0, so it's possible something changed in 6.1, but I've been able to adjust those paths simply by editing the /etc/exports file to export the paths without the vol0. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:46 AM To: toasters Subject: /net/filer/blah vs. /net/filer/vol/vol0/blah After upgrading from 5.3.4-mumble to 6.1.1, it seems that clients can't access pathnames like /net/filer/whatever, but rather have to use /net/filer/vol/vol0/whatever. I think before both seemed to work more or less interchangeably, and unfortunately we have some symlinks that use the old form to point to various things that now are missing. I'm probably just missing something obvious, but is there a way to get the old behavior without using '/vol/vol0' in those pathnames?

2 1

RE: resizing boot volume
by Fox, Adam 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Actually you can offline vol0 before you reboot. It won't actually offline the volume until you reboot but it will mark it to be offlined. Or if you are running 6.x, you can do it as you want but you won't need the 2nd reboot because you can offline non-root volumes without a reboot on 6.x. If you are running pre-6.x, you can do the first method and only have 1 reboot. Just a thought. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:04 PM > To: toasters > Subject: resizing boot volume > > > i am going to redo my boot volume. no data to save. > > steps: > create new volume /vol/vol1 > vol create /vol/vol1 2 > > export /vol/vol1 > > copy /etc from vol0 to vol1 > > make vol1 the root volume > vol options /vol/vo11 root > > reboot > > if vol1 shows as the root volume then > vol offline /vol/vol0 > reboot > vol destroy /vol/vol0 > > rename back to default root vol name > vol rename /vol/vol1 /vol/vol0 > > add some disks back to the new vol0 > vol add /vol/vol0 3 > > > am i missing anything? > > thanks. > > > > -- > > > regards >

1 0

RE: ndmpcopy - dir size changes
by Link, Bill (OTS-EDH) 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Over time as files are deleted directories get more and more deleted entries which are essentially holes in the directory file. NDMPCOPY or even extracting a tar archive will compress the directory files by deleting the unused dirents. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:38 AM To: toasters Subject: ndmpcopy - dir size changes Hi, I just performed a ndmpcopy on my filer. I ran an ls -lR on the original location and on the new location. The files and sizes were identical, the directory sizes differed. Anyone have any ideas why? Thanks Manny Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the individual or company to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure or unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system. Thank you.

2 1

RE: boot volume with no data
by Fox, Adam 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree. I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability is a good one. There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most of my customers don't think so. Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong answer on this one. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > having ontap on > vol0 and data on other volumes? > -- > > > regards >

6 5

Re: boot volume with no data
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

We have NetApp 9gb FC or SCSI shelves/drives available -- cheap! Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 scott(a)unioncomputer.com

1 0

RE: boot volume with no data
by Joe Luchtenberg 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

As far as I can tell, the only 9GB drives currently orderable from NetApp are ZCS drives for the FC9 shelf on the F740. I checked Quoter and NetApp Market on NOW. According to the SysConfig Guide on NOW, the non-checksum 9GB drive for the FC7 is also a supported config for F740/820/840 and the 9GB UltraSCSI drive for Dual Storage Shelf 2 is supported on F740, but none of these are orderable today (perhops Scott at UCE... no, I didn't really say that ;-). However, for new systems, if you want a separate root volume, you need at least 2x 18GB. Perhaps this is less of an issue with 14-disk shelves now (not so much additional incremental shelf $, although it does eat into available scalability). I liked John's suggestion about a flashdisk boot volume. Perhaps someone from NetApp can address futures? 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: Marchand, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marchand@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:26 PM > To: Fox, Adam; 'neil lehrer'; toasters > Subject: RE: boot volume with no data > > > I agree with Adam except I do like a separate root volume as > it makes life much easier for all the reasons he mentioned. > It is a huge waste of space unless you can convince the > customer to purchase 3 9 gig drives, 2 for root 1 for parity > in addition to their other storage requirements. You don't > waste as much space that way and just maybe the customer may > buy an extra shelf with only 3 bays occupied which could > accommodate 4 more drives at a future point in time. > > -Paul > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Paul E. Marchand > Network Appliance ~ Systems Engineer > fast simple reliable > marchand(a)netapp.com > 408.822.3213 415.793.8881(cell) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:54 AM > To: 'neil lehrer'; toasters > Subject: RE: boot volume with no data > > > Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion > and I'm sure others will disagree. > > I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall > they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, > there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. > > 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then > it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. > This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good > for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. > > 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use > of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like > to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then > SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is > your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. > > 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your > dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability > is a good one. > > There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most > common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes > up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most > of my customers don't think so. > > Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong > answer on this one. > > -- Adam Fox > NetApp Professional Services, NC > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > > To: toasters > > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > > having ontap on > > vol0 and data on other volumes? > > -- > > > > > > regards > > >

1 0

RE: What does Z for CP-type in sysstat -u output mean?
by Yee, Steven 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

The next revision of the man page states that Z means "CP caused by internal sync" steve. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:10 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: What does Z for CP-type in sysstat -u output mean? I have just seen a "Z" in the "CP ty(pe)" column of some "sysstat -u" output (with ONTAP 6.1.1). Anyone know what this one means? It's not listed in the na_sysstat(1) man page. It occurred shortly before a scheduled snapshot that gave the expected "S". 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: boot volume with no data
by Mike Sphar 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

I agree that using 9Gb drives is *better* than using larger drives for a separate root volume, but even then you're still using 27Gb of disk space for what is generally an under 100Mb set of data, and it reduces the max capacity of the filer by (what I feel is) a significant amount. Like others have mentioned, I think I great future enhancement to the product line would be a separate set of media for the root volume, whether that's flash disks, microdrives, whatever. -----Original Message----- From: Marchand, Paul [mailto:Paul.Marchand@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:26 AM To: Fox, Adam; 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data I agree with Adam except I do like a separate root volume as it makes life much easier for all the reasons he mentioned. It is a huge waste of space unless you can convince the customer to purchase 3 9 gig drives, 2 for root 1 for parity in addition to their other storage requirements. You don't waste as much space that way and just maybe the customer may buy an extra shelf with only 3 bays occupied which could accommodate 4 more drives at a future point in time. -Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul E. Marchand Network Appliance ~ Systems Engineer fast simple reliable marchand(a)netapp.com 408.822.3213 415.793.8881(cell) -----Original Message----- From: Fox, Adam [mailto:Adam.Fox@netapp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:54 AM To: 'neil lehrer'; toasters Subject: RE: boot volume with no data Okay, I've heard lots of debates on this, here's my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree. I'm not a big fan of root-only volumes. I think that overall they are a big waste of space for very little gain. However, there are some good reasons to do it depending on your scenario. 1. SnapMirror. If you are SnapMirroring all of your data then it is a good idea to have your root volume on a separate volume. This allows you to offline your data volumes at will which is good for initial transfers or resynching back to a source. 2. SnapRestore. If your application or dataset makes regular use of SnapRestore..yes I've seen this in a case where customers like to snapshot a known good dataset, have their users mess with it, then SnapRestore back to the known good dataset afterwards. If this is your scenario, then yes, a root volume is a good idea. 3. Lots of vol copy'ing. If you do lots of vol copy commands in your dataset, then for the same reason as SnapMirror, the offline ability is a good one. There may be others out there in the world, but these are the most common. But in my opinion, for the 50-60MB that /etc typically takes up, is it worth dedicating 2 36GB or 72GB drives? Maybe so, but most of my customers don't think so. Just one geek's opinion. There isn't really a single right or wrong answer on this one. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: boot volume with no data > > > are there any particular advantages or disadvantages to just > having ontap on > vol0 and data on other volumes? > -- > > > regards >

2 1

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