toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

ndmpcopy
by Joseph Foy 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

Thanks to all who sent me references to where to get ndmpcopy! Now I'm having another brainless moment - when I run it as shown below giving it source and destination passwords, and having all machines (the sun and both filer1 and filer2) in each other's hosts, hosts.equiv, and .rhosts files, I still get the error message shown at the bottom. I can rsh the filers all day and dump between filers works fine. example: ======================= mysun# ./ndmpcopy Source and destination filer names and paths are required. Usage: ndmpcopy src_filer:/src/dir dest_filer:/dest/dir [-sa none | user:password] [-da none | user:password] [-sport ndmp_src_port] [-dport ndmp_dest_port] [-dhost ndmp_dest_ip_addr] [-level ndmp_dump_level] [-v] [-q] [-dpass] [-h] Defaults: src_auth_type = text src_auth_user = root src_auth_password = dest_auth_type = text dest_auth_user = root dest_auth_password = ndmp_src_port = 0 (0 means NDMP default, usually 10000) ndmp_dest_port = 0 (0 means NDMP default, usually 10000) ndmp_dump_level = 0 (valid range: 0 - 9) ndmp_dest_ip_addr = (no default: user needs to override dest_filer value) verbosity = noisy different_passwords = no mysun# ./ndmpcopy filer1:/home/tools filer2:/home/tools -sa root:rootpass -da root:rootpass -level 0 -v Connecting to filer1. Connecting to filer2. Error starting backup, error: Error: Connection has not been authorized mysun# _____________________________________________________ Joseph Foy / Systems Administrator / World Wide Packets Beaverton, Oregon / 503-748-0521 / joseph.foy(a)wwp.com fax # 503-748-0510 http://www.wwp.com

1 0

Please help with this "simple" problem.
by Bokkelkamp Ernst SBS ITS GDP 2 14 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

I "playing" with an F760 and NDMP backup, but I am only the backup administrator, my filer knowledge is limited. I doing a three-way NDMP session, the source is the F760 and the tapes are on a Celerra. All machines have 100TX and GigE, normal network connection is the 100TX network which is registered in WINS and DNS, the GigE is a private backup network that is normally used to mount the CIFS shares on a Networker Storage Node for a CIFS based backup. Can somebody tell me how I can see on the filer which interface is being used to transfer the data between the machines ? I am looking for something similar to sysstat but instead to display the information on transfer rate of each interface at regular intervals. Bye Ernst

1 0

RE: compiled version of ndmpcopy
by Coartney, Paul 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

The makefile at the root doesn't work, compile cd into the lib directory and compile the libraries, and then cd into src and compile the source. My preference is to make a bin directory and mv or ln the binary there. Paul P.S. Let me know if this doesn't work for you and I will send you the compiled version. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Foy [mailto:Joseph.Foy@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:22 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: compiled version of ndmpcopy Greetings all, Does anyone know of a source for ndmpcopy that is a compiled binary for Solaris? I have been trying to compile all of the versions of ndmpcopy that I can find at www.ndmp.org on my Sun server, but using gcc and several different versions of make hasn't worked. I cannot use vol copy as both my source and destination filers have only one volume, and the root volume can't be taken offline for the destination. Joseph Foy / Systems Administrator / World Wide Packets Beaverton, Oregon / 503-748-0521 / joseph.foy(a)wwp.com fax # 503-748-0510 http://www.wwp.com

1 0

RE: compiled version of ndmpcopy
by Smith, A Michael (CS) 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

Yes. ftp.netapp.com/pub/ndmpcopy/ download the file called ndmpcopy.Z uncompress the file on your solaris platform. chomd u+x ndmpcopy to make it executable. Then to test to make sure it works you can just execute "ndmpcopy" you should see a usage statement returned. Mike Smith -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Foy [mailto:Joseph.Foy@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:22 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: compiled version of ndmpcopy Greetings all, Does anyone know of a source for ndmpcopy that is a compiled binary for Solaris? I have been trying to compile all of the versions of ndmpcopy that I can find at www.ndmp.org on my Sun server, but using gcc and several different versions of make hasn't worked. I cannot use vol copy as both my source and destination filers have only one volume, and the root volume can't be taken offline for the destination. Joseph Foy / Systems Administrator / World Wide Packets Beaverton, Oregon / 503-748-0521 / joseph.foy(a)wwp.com fax # 503-748-0510 http://www.wwp.com

1 0

RE: compiled version of ndmpcopy
by White, Lance 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

ftp://ftp.netapp.com/pub/netapp/upload/ndmpcopy/ Either Solaris or Solaris2.7 directories will yield this. Lance -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Foy [mailto:Joseph.Foy@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:22 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: compiled version of ndmpcopy Greetings all, Does anyone know of a source for ndmpcopy that is a compiled binary for Solaris? I have been trying to compile all of the versions of ndmpcopy that I can find at www.ndmp.org on my Sun server, but using gcc and several different versions of make hasn't worked. I cannot use vol copy as both my source and destination filers have only one volume, and the root volume can't be taken offline for the destination. Joseph Foy / Systems Administrator / World Wide Packets Beaverton, Oregon / 503-748-0521 / joseph.foy(a)wwp.com fax # 503-748-0510 http://www.wwp.com

1 0

compiled version of ndmpcopy
by Joseph Foy 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

Greetings all, Does anyone know of a source for ndmpcopy that is a compiled binary for Solaris? I have been trying to compile all of the versions of ndmpcopy that I can find at www.ndmp.org on my Sun server, but using gcc and several different versions of make hasn't worked. I cannot use vol copy as both my source and destination filers have only one volume, and the root volume can't be taken offline for the destination. Joseph Foy / Systems Administrator / World Wide Packets Beaverton, Oregon / 503-748-0521 / joseph.foy(a)wwp.com fax # 503-748-0510 http://www.wwp.com

1 0

storage area network deployment (fwd)
by Brian Tao 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

Anyone else getting the following unsolicited survey? Just wondering if nww.com is looking for names on this list, or if they got my e-mail address some other way. I haven't posted in a newsgroup in years... -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:31:45 -0000 From: Deni Connor <dconnor(a)nww.com> To: 'Brian Tao' <taob(a)risc.org> Subject: storage area network deployment I saw your name on a newsgroup and am interested in user perspective for a story I am writing for Network World on storage. Today, IBM, EMC, Compaq, Hitachi Data Systems, Brocaade and McData announced the Supported Solutions Forum, which will offer storage area networking solutions and unified support for customers. They say that with support measures in place for heterogenous SANs that it will stop the fingerpointing that takes place when a user adopts a multi-vendor SAN. The user will be able to contact a vendor when he/she has a problem and that vendor will contact other vendors to solve the problem. The companies will also build 128-port Fibre Channel SANs using McData and Brocade switches. 1. Would the existance of such a forum give you a better reason to adopt a SAN? 2. Would you trust the members of this organization to handle cooperative support better? 3. The organization doesn't support equipment from HP or Sun. Is this a problem for your? 4. Are you adopting SANS? If yes, why? If not, why not? 5. If you have the vendor's assuances that the SAN products they put in will interoperate, will that make it easier for you o adopt a SAN? 6. Would you be happier adopting a SAN knowing that it could be made up from a variety of vendors products? 7. Do you think that being a member of this group will make vendors make equipment more interoperable? 8 If I don't have this info, what is your title? Who do you work for? Where are you located? Thank you in advance. Deni Connor Senior Editor Network World, The Leader in Network Knowledge Tele: 512-345-3850 Fax: 512-345-3860 8815 Mountain Path Circle Austin, Texas 78759 Covering Storage, Novell, Linux and open source For Networking News & Info: www.nwfusion.com Find out more about Network World, Inc.: www.networkworld.com

2 1

RE: Exchange 5.5 on Filer
by Riley, Mike 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

Scott is right on the money. Microsoft does not recommend nor support Exchange on NAS. Sure, I'd like to sugarcoat it for Scott and other Toasterites, but I can't so why spin-doctor it. We're working on it. More to Scott's point on the Exchange database sucking, well, that's the primary reason why Exchange on Filers is a growth industry. I usually try to break it down this way: Performance: Filers excel but let's just say this is a wash. Simple: While we all read or write Toasters in search of solutions, we can all make a pretty good case on filer simplicity and TCO (particularly in the Exchange environment). Reliable: And this is the key point. Neither a fibre SAN nor Network Appliance will prevent an Exchange corruption. You will get hit with a corruption. I don't believe the filer invites the trouble. I believe the trouble will find you, regardless. The question then becomes how do I recover from this inevitability. That's why SnapManager for Exchange has carved out a substantial market - for both NetApp AND Microsoft. Believe it or not, Microsoft works their asses off to make Exchange a solid product. Sure, you get corruptions and they tend to be stealthy and nasty but Microsoft has made a fairly easy to use messaging platform and that ain't easy to do! What usually makes Admins break out into a nice flop-sweat is the fact that your CEO probably couldn't name the last time the Oracle or SQL servers experienced a corruption, but they could probably name down to the and minute the last time they couldn't use e-mail. SnapManager keeps the phone from ringing, keeps the flop-sweats to a minimum. (Being an ex-Admin, it's one of things we ponder when standing in front of a server at 2:00 a.m. waiting for the consistency check to finish.) Actually, some of my better customers were the ones that took a pass the first time around but called back in the midst of another outage. SnapManager actually provides Exchange Admins a solid tool to deploy Exchange environments. It's the perfect safety n! et. Let's face it, no one is out there pitching slow, complicated and unpredictable. We are addressing the somewhat unpredictable nature of Exchange by allowing you to recover your stors in minutes vs. <fill in your personal experience from your last Exchange outage>. Your points are well-taken. NetApp will support and is probably your best source of support when it comes to Exchange on filers. Hopefully, this will keep your site in the "supportable" category. -----Original Message----- From: Waters, G Scott DSTI [mailto:scott.waters@SBCCOM.APGEA.ARMY.MIL] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:12 AM To: 'Rafi Mimon'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 on Filer You need to rephrase that statement ... Microsoft does not recommend or support Exchange 5.5 or 2K on any NAS. We are in the process of upgrading our entire Exchange site. We currently run very old multi-processor servers and serve about 400 - 500 users on each machine. I was tasked to recommend an upgrade path ... after hearing Microsoft's recommendations and taking into account that we are Microsoft Premier Support customer, I recommended a SAN solution. My recommendations were ignored and as the Exchange Admin, I am now being forced to implement a NAS solution. I have nothing against the Filer or NetApp. The product is wonderful. I do however, realize that the Exchange database sucks and when you talk to it through the Windows "redirector" you are asking for trouble. The decision should be based on how comfortable you are with Exchange and the Filer and also if you are willing to run Exchange in an unsupported mode (from Microsoft - NetApp has some arrangement with IBM Global for Exchange support if you need it after putting your system into an unsupported mode). I talked to several references and they all had nothing but good things to say. I'll have some personal stories to share in the next month or two. In all the meetings and arguing that lead up to the decision there was one statement that just floored me. It was at a meeting where I am defending my position to use SAN technology and not NAS. Someone in the meeting turns to me and says "I can't believe you are going to let Microsoft dictate your hardware requirements". I was floored and replied "a.) As the author of the software in question, I figured they would have the best knowledge on where to run it and more importantly b.) we (as an organization) let Microsoft dictate the software that we run (we only run Microsoft products, we can only develop in Microsoft languages, etc) so I figured if we follow like lambs in one case ... why not the other??" Remember, before you flame, I am in no way slamming the NetApp or the Filer in general ... I was just trying to keep the site "supportable". Scott Waters US Army HQ Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (USAHQSBCCOM) scott.waters(a)sbccom.apgea.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Rafi Mimon [mailto:rmimon@vyyo.co.il] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:12 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Exchange 5.5 on Filer Hello all, I'm thinking of using the Filer with Exchange 5.5. I have one F740 with ONTAP 6.0.2R1. Microsoft does not recommend to use any NAS system for the exchange database files, so I would like to hear from you guys, did you encountered any problems? should I connect the Exchange server and the Filer Back to back or to the LANs backbone? Rafi Mimon VYYO.LTD. E-mail :rmimon@vyyo.co.il ********************************************************************** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error (whether inadvertently addressed to you, or if forwarded to you by a recipient), please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Vyyo's Virus Scan Systems for the presence of computer viruses. **********************************************************************

1 0

RE: Exchange 5.5 on Filer [long]
by Witham, John 05 Jun '01

05 Jun '01

Hi Rafi: Sorry in advance for the long email... Everything's still fresh in my mind. We've now got 2 Exchange 5.5SP4 servers running at our company on NAS. One of them, serving our 100% remote sales staff of 1000, has been up and running for almost a year on the original SnapManager 1.0 software, with very acceptable results. Last weekend (Memorial Day weekend in the US), we were alerted that our primary Exchange server could no longer be backed up due to possible corruption in the database. This box is our "Bread And Butter" Exchange Server, serving 500 people at our Home Office. The IS was 80GB (don't ask.) and it was stored on a local RAID 0+1 array. Over the weekend, we built a new box running Win2K Advanced Server and installed 5.5SP4 on it, along with the latest and greatest SnapManager. We had some difficulties with the new SnapManager software (mostly due to unfamiliarities, it has an app that replaces the AUTOEXECNT workaround, but it's buggy). We moved all of the mailboxes off of the ailing box, and my Exchange Admins are very impressed with the Filer performance. There are some serious pros and cons about using Snapmanager: Pros: * You can snapshot whenever you want. We're doing 4 a day and backing up one. * NetApp provides software (SnapManager/SnapRestore) that is very easy to migrate an existing server to NAS * You can add storage to a volume on the fly, invisibly. This was _very_ helpful whilst we were moving so many large mailboxes... We had to grow the logs volume after it filled up when we were moving the mailboxes... 36GB was gone in no time. * If you want, SnapManager will do a database consistency verification... Provided you want to throw 110% of free space at the volume! (Again, back to my 80GB information store (don't ask.)) * SnapManager allows you NOT to do an ESEUTIL. It's _very_ system intensive and lengthy, so we only do 1 a day, for our backup to tape. You can also run the ESEUTIL from a different server without impacting performance. Cons: * The new SnapManager software provides a utility called NetAppDisk which is pretty buggy. It's supposed to monitor connectivity to the Filer and stop your Exchange services if you lose your connection. When the connection is re-established, it will restart the services you tell it to. In our installation, it started most of the services we wanted it to, and all of the services we DIDN'T want it to. (Even though the app was configured not to start our Lotus cc:Mail connector service (which we don't use), it would. The service, which wasn't configured, would crap out and die. NetAppDisk would try to start it again. It died again. NetAppDisk then pauses itself, so it won't try to start the services again. Since it's paused, it's not monitoring the connectivity to the filer.) It also, for some reason, doesn't start the MS Exchange MTA (This is a Bad Thing(tm)). It's a cool concept, but when the rubber meets the road, the product isn't there yet. I've asked about a new version, but haven't gotten anything back. * I had to update my Filer to 6.1R1... SnapManager requires Data ONTAP 6.0.2 or 6.1. I had no issues, as it was a "F760 I had laying around" and I could do a ground up build... Just something to think about. * I'm using quite a bit of disk... 9 36GB disks in all right now, 3 for transaction logs, and 6 for my IS. That's 324GB RAW space. Subtract 2 disks for parity and FS overhead, snapshot retention... yadda yadda yadda. In my 0+1 array, I had 8 mirrored 18g's and a pair of mirrored 9's for my logs. These snapshot's sure do take up space! I figure if I can avoid/recover from just one virus outbreak, it's paid for. As far as it goes with M$ support? My NetApp rep, Kevin Bushnick, summed it up pretty well once: "If you're down and have an 8 hour turnaround support contract with M$, would you rather go that route or recover in 2 hours (Worst case scenario; you have to rebuild the OS on your box)." The first box we brought up had some fierce hardware problems and would just shut down when it was under heavy loads... The next time it went down, we pulled the OS drives and slapped them into an identical box. The OS came up, hit the Filer, and has been running fine ever since. Regarding network connectivity, the "temp Exchange box" is using a single Gigabit Ethernet NIC plugged into our Cisco Catalyst 6500 series backbone switches. The filer in question is connected via a multi GigE vif using Cisco Gig-EtherChannel. We're not using Jumbo Frames, and aren't having any network bottlenecks. Just my .02 (Which is more like 2.00 now) Our decision is to rebuild the production server with only GigE and keep all databases on the filer. The performance is acceptable, and the pros really outweighed the cons in our case. I just can't wait until NetApp fixes the NetAppDisk app. HTH, -john John Witham Sr. Data Networking Engineer Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. Voice ://847.383.3304 FAX ://847.383.3205 Mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com Pager : http://www.arch.com/message PIN 4149491 -----Original Message----- From: Rafi Mimon [mailto:rmimon@vyyo.co.il] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:12 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Exchange 5.5 on Filer Hello all, I'm thinking of using the Filer with Exchange 5.5. I have one F740 with ONTAP 6.0.2R1. Microsoft does not recommend to use any NAS system for the exchange database files, so I would like to hear from you guys, did you encountered any problems? should I connect the Exchange server and the Filer Back to back or to the LANs backbone? Rafi Mimon VYYO.LTD. E-mail :rmimon@vyyo.co.il ********************************************************************** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error (whether inadvertently addressed to you, or if forwarded to you by a recipient), please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Vyyo's Virus Scan Systems for the presence of computer viruses. **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: Permission denied
by MikeBall＠datalink.com 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

Srikanth, Telnet to the Netapp and type "exportfs". See if you have given root and rw access to only certain machines, etc.. Mike "A, Srikanth (Srikanth)" To: toasters(a)mathworks.com <asrikanth@lucent. cc: com> Subject: Permission denied Sent by: owner-toasters@mat hworks.com 06/04/2001 02:09 AM Hello all, We have Netapps 760 with NetApp Release 5.3.6R2. On netapp only NFS is enabled and it has quad Ethernet card all are 100 MBPS full duplex. Clients are sun and hp machines. now a days we have a problem on clients it says NFS write error on host filer: Permission denied Can someone tell me what could the problem. - Best Regards, Srikanth A. Lucent Technologies O Phone: +91-80-505 2060

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