toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

irritating repeated message
by William W. Arnold 18 May '01

18 May '01

I received the following message [nbns_timer:error]: WINS Server [our wins server IP address] is not responding to registration of 10.254.2.2 then the following message every hour: [nbns_timer:error]: No WINS servers are responding; still trying It started when I activated one of the previously unused interfaces on my Quad Fast Ethernet card. The interface in question is attached to a cross-over cable to a sun server, There are no WINS (Or any other microsoft protocol) servers on it. As far as I can see, everything is working correctly. All other interfaces are properly registered with our WINS servers. Everything on the NT side of the network can access the Filer without any problems. Is there any way to stop this message from repeating forever? It's rather irritating. -- -billy- warnold(a)vipnet.org

3 3

RE: irritating repeated message
by Haynes, Tom 18 May '01

18 May '01

Add the following to your ifconfig in /etc/rc: -wins Example of one which has WINS and one which does not: ifconfig e9 10.100.4.133 netmask 255.255.255.0 partner 10.100.4.134 -wins ifconfig e5 10.56.10.133 netmask 255.255.255.0 partner 10.56.10.134 -----Original Message----- From: William W. Arnold [mailto:warnold@vipnet.org] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 2:59 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: irritating repeated message I received the following message [nbns_timer:error]: WINS Server [our wins server IP address] is not responding to registration of 10.254.2.2 then the following message every hour: [nbns_timer:error]: No WINS servers are responding; still trying It started when I activated one of the previously unused interfaces on my Quad Fast Ethernet card. The interface in question is attached to a cross-over cable to a sun server, There are no WINS (Or any other microsoft protocol) servers on it. As far as I can see, everything is working correctly. All other interfaces are properly registered with our WINS servers. Everything on the NT side of the network can access the Filer without any problems. Is there any way to stop this message from repeating forever? It's rather irritating. -- -billy- warnold(a)vipnet.org

1 0

RE: snapmirror error
by Fox, Adam 18 May '01

18 May '01

The rule is that due to the filesystems changes in 6.x that if you are SnapMirroring between 5.x and 6.x that the destination *must* be the 6.x filer since the 6.x filer can revert its volumes back to the 5.x filesystem but a 5.x filer cannot understand a 6.x filesystem. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have 840s and 330s, it's the ONTAP version. Hope this makes sense. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:55 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: snapmirror error > > > I am attempting to snapmirror between a 330 with 5.3.2R1 and > a 840 with > 6.01R3. i am getting this error in the 330's messages file. > > [worker_thread]: snapmirror: destination request with > incorrect version > > i am able to snapmirror another 330 with 5.3.6R2 with the 840 > using the same > format in my snapmirror.conf and snapmirror.allow and hosts > and hosts.equiv. > network connectivity is fine, etc. > > NOW had nothing. any ideas? > > roger rleonard >

1 0

snapmirror error
by Leonard, Roger 18 May '01

18 May '01

I am attempting to snapmirror between a 330 with 5.3.2R1 and a 840 with 6.01R3. i am getting this error in the 330's messages file. [worker_thread]: snapmirror: destination request with incorrect version i am able to snapmirror another 330 with 5.3.6R2 with the 840 using the same format in my snapmirror.conf and snapmirror.allow and hosts and hosts.equiv. network connectivity is fine, etc. NOW had nothing. any ideas? roger rleonard

1 0

6.1R1 & snapmirror
by Francett, Robert D (SAIC) 18 May '01

18 May '01

Hello All, We're planning an upgrade of a pair of F740 filers in snapmirror configuration from DOT 5.3.6R1P1D1 to DOT 6.1R1. The F740s currently support FC8 & FC9 shelves with 18G drives. In addition to the mandatory firmware upgrade to the filers, we are also planning the addition of a new FC9 shelf of 7/72G drives to be served by a dedicated FC adapter on each filer. Network Appliance has indicated we should upgrade the target filer first, then the source machine. Otherwise, we expect no worries. Does anyone have experiences, good or bad, with DOT 6.1R1 and snapmirror that we should be aware of? Thanks, Bob Francett BP Exploration (Alaska)

1 0

Question on OS upgrades when clustered
by Allen, Pat 18 May '01

18 May '01

Hi all, I've just clustered a couple of F740's. I've got about 6 years of experience upgrading the OS on filers but have never done it on a cluster before. Do I need to do anything special to insure that both boxes are on the same version of the operating system? I will be going from 6.0.1R3 to 6.1R1. Thanks! --- Pat Allen (pat(a)mbari.org) Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039 (voice) 831-775-1724; (fax) 831-775-1620

2 1

snapmirror status
by Leonard, Roger 18 May '01

18 May '01

is there a way to log what snapmirror is doing? other than snapmirror status there doesn't appear to be any logging going on with my mirrors. i would like to know how long it took, etc. Roger D. Leonard Marconi Communications

1 0

Relabeling drives
by Ed Tien 18 May '01

18 May '01

Does anyone have the documentation for this?

1 0

RE: Novell integration/migration experiences
by Benn, Paul 18 May '01

18 May '01

Having lived through a NetWare to NT migration at a previous employer I can share a few tidbits with you. You're gonna have to bite the bullet because moving the data and shares over is a manual process. If you haven't already done so, you'll need to have your NT or Win2K domain in place and dual redirectors installed (and working) on the client machines (more on this in the white paper referenced below). You can migrate the user home directories over in smaller (perhaps departmental) groups. I don't know how receptive your team is to working weekends but we split up into teams and alternated Saturday shifts so that when the users came in on Monday, everything was migrated. There are some tools, though, to facilitate migrating NDS user accounts over to Active Directory. We've not used them in-house but here are a few names you might want to look into: Netvision: Synchronicity NetIQ: Netware Migrator Microsoft: as I recall they also have an NDS->AD tool available. Check out this article (product recommendations in the side bar): http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO52669,00.html Don't know if you've already seen this but perhaps you can glean a few pearls of wisdom by giving a quick scan: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3053.html Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Ambrose_Earle(a)shamrockfoods.com [mailto:Ambrose_Earle@shamrockfoods.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:46 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Novell integration/migration experiences Anyone out there have any war stories about integrating and then migrating user shares from Netware to a filer and then ultimately to an NT-only environment that they'd like to share?

1 0

RE: Hardware Upgrade
by Fox, Adam 17 May '01

17 May '01

6.1 System Admin Guide page 131. You can get the 6.1 SysAdmin Guide from NOW. Enjoy! -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 5:03 PM > To: Fox, Adam > Cc: 'Jeffrey Krueger'; 'Honeycutt, Michael'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: Re: Hardware Upgrade > > > Could you point us at the relevent documentation that > describes this? I've > been searching NOW and haven't come up with it yet. > > Thanks! > > -- Jeff > > > On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:06:18PM -0700, Fox, Adam wrote: > > I haven't received an explanation for it and honestly > > thought it sounded reasonable. It may work under another > > config, but I would think for the vast majority of configs, > > it shouldn't be a problem, especially that if you use the > > dual fiber cards, you get a fiber link for the first hop > > anyway. > > > > If at all possible, I would wire it up that way just to > > stay within the known good configs. > > > > -- Adam Fox > > NetApp Professional Services, NC > > adamfox(a)netapp.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 1:45 PM > > > To: Fox, Adam > > > Cc: 'Honeycutt, Michael'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > > > Subject: Re: Hardware Upgrade > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:49:40PM -0700, Fox, Adam wrote: > > > > It is suggested if you are hooking up a dual path loop that the > > > > B loop start at the opposite end of the loop as the A loop. In > > > > other words, the B loop starts on the last shelf on the A loop > > > > and works it's way back. > > > > > > Why is that loop configuration suggested? > > > > > > -- Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > >

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