toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13514 discussions

Origin of F330
by Bill Bradford 15 May '01

15 May '01

Can one of you internal geeks @ NetApp contact me off-list? I'd like to look up the history / origin of this F330, as it appears to possibly have been an engineering/internal/development unit (cards with revision / ECN #s, etc, tied to each major internal component, etc) and I'd like to see where it was before I got my hands on it.. Also - I thought the F330 faceplates were blue? This one is off-grey; almost like an older DEC machine... Need to find the floppy drive "cover" as well... Anyway, contact me off-list. Thanks. Bill -- Bill Bradford mrbill(a)mrbill.net Austin, TX

1 0

snapmirror
by Leonard, Roger 15 May '01

15 May '01

i am snapmirroring between a 740 with 5.3 and a 840 with 6.0. the initial snapmirror went ok and i set up for it to refresh again tonight. my question is, will the target volume automatically go offline or do i need to manually offline it? i manually offlined it before and it onlined it by itself when it was done mirroring. thanks roger leonard

3 2

RE: snapmirror
by Fox, Adam 15 May '01

15 May '01

Incremental snapmirror targets do not need to be offline. They are read-only by default until snapmirror is turned off. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonard, Roger [mailto:Roger.Leonard@marconi.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1:57 PM > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: snapmirror > > > i am snapmirroring between a 740 with 5.3 and a 840 with 6.0. > the initial > snapmirror went ok and i set up for it to refresh again tonight. my > question is, will the target volume automatically go offline > or do i need to > manually offline it? i manually offlined it before and it > onlined it by > itself when it was done mirroring. > > thanks > > roger leonard >

1 0

RE: ClearCase "certified" filers
by Koepnick, Victoria 15 May '01

15 May '01

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] 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 ---

1 0

RE: Summary Cleanup
by Jankowski Ted-CTJ012 15 May '01

15 May '01

You may also want to verify what snapshots you have lying around. We had a couple of old one that weren't going to go away naturally. After I deleted them, the WAFL upgrade finished soon afterwards. -Ted -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:33 AM To: MadDog(a)fool.com Cc: Toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Summary Cleanup "Tom \"Mad Dog\" Yergeau" <MadDog(a)fool.com> writes > > Since upgrading a filer to OT6.1, I've noticed a lot of these messages in > the log file: > > Sat May 12 23:24:02 EDT [wafl_CP_proc:info]: Starting summary cleanup on > volume vol1. > Sat May 12 23:24:04 EDT [wafl_lopri:info]: Volume vol1, summary cleanup > complete. > > They only occur for vol1, not vol0, an although they generally occur at 4 > hour intervals I've also seem them occur 1/2 dozen times in 10 minutes. > > Can anyone explain what a "summary cleanup" is, why it was added in 6.1, and > how come there's no real pattern to when they happen?

1 0

RE: ClearCase "certified" filers
by Clawson, Simon 15 May '01

15 May '01

We met with NetApps reps in the USA a month agoa nad they told us about this too. Apparently it has been completely certified for storage of VOBs.. > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday May 2001 18:04 > 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 ---

1 0

ClearCase "certified" filers
by Todd C. Merrill 15 May '01

15 May '01

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 ---

1 0

Summary Cleanup
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 15 May '01

15 May '01

Since upgrading a filer to OT6.1, I've noticed a lot of these messages in the log file: Sat May 12 23:24:02 EDT [wafl_CP_proc:info]: Starting summary cleanup on volume vol1. Sat May 12 23:24:04 EDT [wafl_lopri:info]: Volume vol1, summary cleanup complete. They only occur for vol1, not vol0, an although they generally occur at 4 hour intervals I've also seem them occur 1/2 dozen times in 10 minutes. Can anyone explain what a "summary cleanup" is, why it was added in 6.1, and how come there's no real pattern to when they happen? Thanks, MD

2 1

RE: Summary Cleanup
by Traitel, Eyal 15 May '01

15 May '01

This is from the WAFL upgrade. Can you post your vol status -c ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, LCA, NetApp CA Network Appliance BV Hoofddorp, The Netherlands Office: +31 23 567 9685 Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: Mon, May 14, 2001 23:19 To: 'Toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Summary Cleanup Since upgrading a filer to OT6.1, I've noticed a lot of these messages in the log file: Sat May 12 23:24:02 EDT [wafl_CP_proc:info]: Starting summary cleanup on volume vol1. Sat May 12 23:24:04 EDT [wafl_lopri:info]: Volume vol1, summary cleanup complete. They only occur for vol1, not vol0, an although they generally occur at 4 hour intervals I've also seem them occur 1/2 dozen times in 10 minutes. Can anyone explain what a "summary cleanup" is, why it was added in 6.1, and how come there's no real pattern to when they happen? Thanks, MD

1 0

RE: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others
by Paul Timmins 14 May '01

14 May '01

Not to nit-pick... but what being described is the behavior of a log-structured file system (of which WAFL is one). There are many other implementations of log-structured file systems. IMO, calling that copy-on-write is dead-wrong, not merely confusing. There's no copy going on. The inode file is copied (checkpointed) when a snapshot is initiated, not when a write occurs. Just my two cents... Paul -----Original Message----- From: Eli Lopez [mailto:elopez@netapp.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 4:38 AM To: Jay Soffian; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others Hi Jay, You are right that the terminology is confusing. One way to look at it is to think of two ways of copy-on-write: when you are updating a block of a file you can: 1) Either write the NEW UPDATED block to a new location 2) Or move the OLD block to a new location AND THEN write the new updated block in place of the old one. Taking a snapshot with both methods involves copying the inode file BUT obviously there could be serious performance impact using the second method (for each update, the write request needs to 'wait' until the old block gets copied to a new location). Network Appliance's WAFL uses the first method which does not have any impact on performance and is (IMVHO) much more elegant. Thanks, Eli ______________________ Eli Lopez Systems Engineer Manager Network Appliance, Israel (+972) - 50 - 304 - 733 Eli.Lopez(a)Netapp.com ______________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: Jay Soffian <jay(a)loudcloud.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:00 PM Subject: Re: EMC IP4700 vs NetApp F740 > "Ferd" == Ferd Berfl <ferd_berfl(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > re: snapshots, I thought that everyone else's snapshot > > functionality other than Netapp's must be based on a "copy on > > write" method because Netapp has a patent on continuously > > writing new blocks. > > WAFL uses copy-on-write. Here, straight from the horse's mouth: > > WAFL uses a copy-on-write technique to minimize the disk space that > Snapshots consume. > > http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3002.html > > Now, Netapp's implementation may be unique, but to say that WAFL > doesn't use copy-on-write and to make a claim like "copy-on-write is > slow, Netapp doesn't use it" is bogus. > > j. > -- > Jay Soffian <jay(a)loudcloud.com> System Administrator > 408 744 7584 Loudcloud, Inc.

4 3

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