toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: Question on OS upgrades when clustered
by Kitch, David 21 May '01

21 May '01

You might want to turn off failovers prior to the upgrade. Otherwise, the first one you upgrade will upgrade the disk firmware on its partner, and you'll have to use boot disks to do the second one. Regards, David Kitch Design IT Infrastructure Texas Instruments Incorporated dkitch(a)ti.com (214)480-1242 -----Original Message----- From: Allen, Pat [mailto:pat@mbari.org] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 1:21 PM To: Toasters (E-mail) Subject: Question on OS upgrades when clustered 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

1 0

Re: disable NT remote management?
by Seth Moskowitz 21 May '01

21 May '01

I am not sure about Keith's suggestion. In theory it should work but since you said that these users from the NT world are equivlent to root and they are still admins in the NT Domain the filer resides in (which they probably are) I believe they would still be able to open server manager on the Filer. I am not positive but I think this could be the case. Also I believe that as long as these NT admins have change access to these directories/files they could be able to share it anyway. Keep in mind that even if you find a way to disable server manager, with the correct rights (which in your scenerio I believe they would have)NT admins still have a variety of command line ways of administering this data if they want to. >From: "Keith Brown" <keith(a)netapp.com> >Reply-To: "Keith Brown" <keith(a)netapp.com> >To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com>, "Marion Hakanson" <hakanson(a)cse.ogi.edu> >Subject: Re: disable NT remote management? >Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:32:12 -0700 > > > > So, does anyone know how to disable access to Server > > Manager, > >Remove the "FILERDOMAIN\Domain Admins" global group from the filer's >"BUILTIN\Administrators" local group using User Manager for Domains. This >will prevent your NT adminstrators from messing with filer shares. > >I am almost, but not quite 100% certain that administrative rights to the >file system will be unaffected by this (the "Administrators" local group >SID is a domain-wide constant if memory serves, so it should still find its >way into your NT admin's security tokens via other means), but give it a >try. > >Keith > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

Automatic disk fw download
by Jeffrey Krueger 19 May '01

19 May '01

So 6.1+ (or is it 6.0+?) now does automatic downloading of firmware to disks which are inserted into the system that need a firmware update. Are un-cached user reads still blocked by this process? Can disk firmware updates still take up to several minutes (this appears to still be the case)? If yes to both questions above, is anyone concerned that the timing of this user downtime is linked to the actual swapping of the disk drive? That is, if I want to update firmware on a set of new spares at 2:00AM when users are mostly idle, I have to be on site and plugging them in one at a time at 2:00AM. Before I would attach the disks during the day and elect to run the slightly disruptive firmware update late at night from the comfort of my snuggly computer room at home. Hopefully I'm missing some cool new feature that makes this concern moot. =) -- Jeff -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

2 1

BlueArc Si7500 NAS
by Brian Tao 19 May '01

19 May '01

Anyone poke around with one of these things? Their wording sounds a bit sneaky ("2000 Mbps throughput" when they mean full-duplex Gigabit Ethernet, "inherent" 200 Mbps limitation in other NAS, 1700 Mbps throughput on FC, etc... huh?). Looks like they are still new to this game. http://www.bluearc.com/products/ -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

6 6

RE: ClearCase "certified" filers
by Koepnick, Victoria 19 May '01

19 May '01

Erik, Both the 5.3.x and the 6.x versions of ONTAP are supported with ClearCase. Moving to 6.x release should not cause a problem. Victoria -----Original Message----- From: Erik Feddersen [mailto:erikf@cadence.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:45 AM To: Okoniewski, Linda Cc: 'Koepnick, Victoria'; 'Todd C. Merrill'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: ClearCase "certified" filers I have been using a 740 filer since March 26 running ClearCase 4.1 (Solaris host, now to patch12) with major sucess. We use Multisite to go SanJose from Boston. Things are going well. I just want to know if migrating from the supported 5.3.6 ONTAP to version 6.x.x is going to cause a problem. We have some interop issues running Legato and upgrading ONTAP may fix those. But it has been working great, no real problems. Clearcase has been pushing enough patches that even my RH7 Linux people are running fine (viewserver on the Linux box, view storage on the netapp). Of course I now want to support the 2.4 kernel and move to 7.1. So, can I upgrade Ontap on a 740 filer beyond the 5.3.6 version? Erik "Okoniewski, Linda" wrote: Victoria is correct...please review the documentation regarding ClearCase and NAS configurations at URL http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/ccnas.jsp <http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/ccnas.jsp> . Thanks for your continued support of ClearCase! Regards, Linda O. Linda Okoniewski Product Mgr. Rational Software Corporation lindao(a)rational.com 781-676-2585 -----Original Message----- From: Koepnick, Victoria [ mailto:victoria.koepnick@netapp.com <mailto:victoria.koepnick@netapp.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:33 PM To: 'Todd C. Merrill'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Linda Okoniewski (E-mail) Subject: RE: ClearCase "certified" filers Todd, As of March 28, 2001 NetApp filers are certified for the complete storage of the VOB and View databases in a Unix, Interop or Windows only Rational ClearCase environment. It is no longer necessary to have the databases reside on local disk and Rational supports placing the databases on filers. My guess is the last time you spoke to Rational folks was prior to March 28, in which case they gave you the correct information. As you well know, filers natively support both CIFS and NFS making the use of Syntax TAS unnecessary. During our ClearCase certification testing there was no performance degradation when using a filer. In fact, we typically found the performance to be better than when using direct attached storage in ClearCase environments. We are currently working on performance benchmarks in order to document the performance gains achieved. Your read of the statement in the brochure is correct. It is true that both restrictions have now been removed. Using a filer with ClearCase also makes back-up and restore much easier due to NetApp SnapShots (not to be confused with the snapshot function in ClearCase). With SnapShots, the VOB database is locked for typically only a matter of seconds (exact time will depend on the size of the VOB). The March 28th certification includes use of filers with ClearCase Multisite as well. Hope this helps clear up any questions or concerns. Victoria J. Koepnick Network Appliance Manager, Technical Markets 408-822-6465 -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [ mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com <mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:04 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: ClearCase "certified" filers I just received in the mail a notice that NetApp filers are "certified" for use with Rational's ClearCase product. In particular, it says: "Network Appliance delivers network-attached storage solutions *certified for ClearCase 4.x* for complete VOB and View storage in UNIX, Windows, and multiprotocol environments. You get true single-copy data sharing between UNIX and Windows clients, without emulation software." Last time we asked the Rational folks if they had customers using NetApps, the answer was yes. But, Rational still recommended the VOB and View *databases* reside on local disk on the VOB or View servers. Is that recommended restriction now gone? Also, when we delved into it some more, it turns out we would still have needed Syntax TAS servers to serve the data to the CIFS clients, even though the various pools were stored on a NetApp. That is, clients would still have to request data via the ClearCase daemons on the various ClearCase servers. In other words, to fetch a file from the cleartext pool, for example, the client could NOT directly fetch it from the filer. Needless to say, performance via the ClearCase daemons was "sub-optimal." My read of the statement in the brochure is that both restrictions have now been removed (database storage and TAS servers). Is this true? Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com <http://www.mathworks.com> --- -- Erik Feddersen Quickturn, a Cadence Company Sr. Eng. Mgr, SW Operations Advanced Simulation Division Email: erikf(a)cadence.com http://www.quickturn.com <http://www.quickturn.com> VMail: 978.441.4326 Fax: 978.441.4301

1 0

irritating repeated message
by William W. Arnold 19 May '01

19 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 19 May '01

19 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 19 May '01

19 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

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