toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

remove
by Omar Fabián García 14 May '01

14 May '01

remove -- Ing. Omar Fabián García Ejecutivo de Cuentas LighTech mailto:ogarcia@lightech.com.ar Reconquista 1034. Piso 1 Tel:(54-11) 4311-4960 Capital Federal Fax:(54-11) 4311-3132 Buenos Aires - Argentina C1003ABV http://www.lightech.com.ar

1 0

"Hobbyist" licenses?
by Bill Bradford 14 May '01

14 May '01

Well, I havent found a way (yet) to make this F330 into a non- doorstop, and have no friends to quietly swipe a NFS license key off of. The NetApp sales rep that called me even suggested that "maybe you can run Linux on it?" Hrmph. 8-) So, any chance in hell for us people who happen to have older machines at home to get some kind of a "hobbyist use" or "restricted" NFS license so that we can make use of these machines? I'd be willing to sign something stating that I wont be using the filer in any kind of commercial / for-profit capacity (in fact, MP3s for my wife, and my important documents...) Bill -- Bill Bradford mrbill(a)mrbill.net Austin, TX

1 0

Testing Toasters List
by Sam Schorr 14 May '01

14 May '01

Hey, I haven't received new mail in awhile on this list. So, this is just a test to see if something is amiss with my mail. Sam Schorr

1 0

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

14 May '01

I'll give you a 10 for good linguistics. [although, heck, I still don't agree, since there never is a copy of the data] The way I see it: Regarding log-structured, you are describing additions to standard filesystems to log prior to write (generally for reboot consistency), such as Sun's UFS w/ Logging in Solaris 7. That is not a log-structured file system. Do a quick search on log-structured file systems, and you'll see many other implementations. For example (of a paper): (apologize for the long url) http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers2/cs/698/http:zSzzSzwww.eecs.harvard. eduzSz~margozSzpaperszSzusenix.193.pdf/seltzer93implementation.pdf Paul -----Original Message----- From: Traitel, Eyal [mailto:eyal@netapp.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 10:43 PM To: Paul Timmins; 'Eli Lopez'; Jay Soffian; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others Paul, I think this is only terminology issue. The word "copy" was probably used as a noun, not a verb, with the meaning that after the write, you have another copy of the same block - well, not exactly the same - one is the old, one is the new. Hence the word copy. On log structured fs - if WAFL was simple and not patented everyone could have just do it like us. This is not the case. Regular log based filesystems have to commit once in a while the log into the original, fixed locations on disk. WAFL does not have this limitation - that's the Anywhere from the word WAFL. Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Paul Timmins [mailto:paul@ptimmins.com] Sent: Mon, May 14, 2001 04:06 To: 'Eli Lopez'; Jay Soffian; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others 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.

1 0

RE: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others
by Traitel, Eyal 14 May '01

14 May '01

Paul, I think this is only terminology issue. The word "copy" was probably used as a noun, not a verb, with the meaning that after the write, you have another copy of the same block - well, not exactly the same - one is the old, one is the new. Hence the word copy. On log structured fs - if WAFL was simple and not patented everyone could have just do it like us. This is not the case. Regular log based filesystems have to commit once in a while the log into the original, fixed locations on disk. WAFL does not have this limitation - that's the Anywhere from the word WAFL. Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Paul Timmins [mailto:paul@ptimmins.com] Sent: Mon, May 14, 2001 04:06 To: 'Eli Lopez'; Jay Soffian; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Copy on write - Netapp vs. others 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.

1 0

RE: ndmpd errors
by Chitre, Amol 14 May '01

14 May '01

Neil, Very early to determine the exact cause of your problems here. But taking a shot from my previous experiences with Veritas, 99 is generally when the file system path you are trying to backup is not appropriate. Could you check if the path exists or if its a directory? In case this persists, try with a different path and let me know.... Thanks, Amol. >-----Original Message----- >From: Conner, Neil [mailto:neil@mbari.org] >Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:26 PM >To: Toasters (E-mail) >Subject: ndmpd errors > > >We just installed a second F740 and configured it for clustering. Both >filers are running 6.0.1.R3. >The original F740 has a tape library attached via SCSI and >backups run fine >on it using Veritas netbackup 3.4 patch 559 on Solaris 8. > >I'm trying to do a three-way backup of the new filer. On the master >server, I set up authentication with "set_ndmp_auth" and I've >verified that >the master can connect to the new filer. > >When I run a backup of /vol/vol0, Veritas aborts with Error >99. The All >Logs entry shows: >5/10/2001 3:05:33 PM squid tempest Warning WRN - >Cannot backup >filepath /vol/vol0, NDMP_HALT_INTERNAL_ERROR occurred (path >may not exist), >skipping > >The filer reports the following messages in syslog: > >Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: >Ndmpd10: Top level >IOException >Thu May 10 15:06:04 PDT [tempest: Java Thread:warning]: Ndmpd10: IO >exception: Socket closed. > >This is the output from ndmpd probe session: > >ndmpd ON. >Session: 10 > isActive: TRUE > protocol version: 2 > effHost: Local > authorized: TRUE > client addr: 134.89.10.149:41047 > spt.device_id: none > spt.ha: -1 > spt.scsi_id: -1 > spt.scsi_lun: -1 > tape.device: not open > tape.mode: Read only > mover.state: Idle > mover.mode: Read > mover.pauseReason N/A > mover.haltReason N/A > mover.recordSize: 0 > mover.recordNum: 0 > mover.dataWritten: 0 > mover.seekPosition: 0 > mover.bytesLeftToRead: 0 > mover.windowOffset: -1 > mover.windowLength: -1 > mover.position: 0 > mover.connect.addr_type:LOCAL > data.operation: None > data.state: Idle > data.haltReason: N/A > data.connect.addr_type: LOCAL > data.bytesProcessed: 0 > >Anybody see the problem? >Neil >

1 0

ADV: Top Search Engine Placement
by mike222＠msgbox.com 13 May '01

13 May '01

Removal instructions below. I saw your listing on the internet. I work for a company that specializes in getting clients web sites listed as close to the top of the major search engines as possible. Our fee is only $29.95 per month to submit your site at least twice a month to over 350 search engines and directories. To get started and put your web site in the fast lane, call our toll free number below. Mike Bender 888-532-8842 To be removed call: 888-800-6339 X1377

1 0

RE: NetAppCertTest
by Fairchild, Peter 11 May '01

11 May '01

This is precisely what is being considered to deal with some of the issues raised throughout this thread. For instance, once the NetAppCP certification is achieved we could offer a variety of topical tests. Pass a test and you get a chevron to place on your NetAppCP Certification. Then, once a certain number of chevrons is earned qualification for Expert status could result. Or we could break the Professional level up as Michael H. suggests and require a certain number of chevrons to achieve it. Either way, one size would not have to fit all - it never does anyway - and the test taker can taylor the certification to their strengths, OS environment, and applications. We also see this as a possible opportunity to involve partners in the certification process. We're not there yet. First and foremost, we must develop the curriculum to support such requirements. And, creating such a testing collage is not trivial either. So for now, the two Professional level tests (NSO400 & 500) are based on the Advanced DOT Sys Admin (202), Clustering, SnapMirror/SnapRestore classes. Just like Michael H. describes, the focus is on clustering, advanced configuration, troubleshooting, tuning and optimization, with a shot or two of Oracle and Exchange taken directly from the pages of the class materials. The overall objective of the Professional Certification exams is to challenge your problem solving and critical thinking skills. Much more detail is on the NOW site. -pwf BTW, we used to call them "Merit Badges". I got tossed before making Tenderfoot . . . now I do tests :-> -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:58 AM To: '' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest Hey, maybe we're using the wrong model. Maybe instead of certifications, we should earn patches like the boy scouts. Then I could work on earning my database patch, my performance tuning patch, etc. It's just crazy enough to work! :) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:47 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest I concur that the problem of "Paper MCSE's" damages the credibility of real world experts that hold the same title. On the other hand, making the tests impossible to pass without knowing everything there is to know about a product is just as bad. I do think that NetApp needs to branch the test out to offer specific tests with area of relivance as in database vs. straight file serving. Any comments NetApp education people?? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:32 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest This just reflects a concern I have with certifications in general. A certification that can be obtained with nothing but training and studying and no real-world experience is of questionable value to me. Likewise, a certification that a person with extensive real-world experience can't obtain is also of questionable value. I agree that perhaps there should be multiple different certifications. The filers are just so adaptable that it's impractical to think someone should be an expert on every possible thing they can do. I might administer a hundred filers but never have a need to put a database on one. Likewise I might never need to serve anything but CIFS. It might make the certifications more meaningful to say that for example a given administrator is certified for NFS, CIFS, Databases, HTTP, Security, Networking, etc. You probably don't want the list to be too long, but the idea would be to try to reflect the common real-world uses of the filer. It could even still be just the one single test. Except that rather than giving a single pass/fail certification, the applicant would be scored in each category and granted certifications in each area for which they showed expertise. I honestly appreciate that Netapp's test are more complicated than simple multiple-choice. It shows me that they're making some attempt to prevent the "Paper MCSE" type of situation, which is good. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:14 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest Yes. There are questions on disk/volume concepts, clustering, how to implement with Oracle/Sql, how to implement with Exchange, name resolution, mixing disks in volumes (IE - disk size, zoning), and so on and so on. The point is, NetApp needs to seriously reconsider the format of these tests. They are very poorly designed. The first 10-15 questions are multiple choice, the next 15-25 were open ended on clustering of all things, next 10-15 were multiple choice again, and then the rest of the test ended with open ended questions. If NetApp is going to make the test so difficult that only their own employees are going to pass, then they need to remove its availability to its customers. If they are going to leave it public, they need to make it so that normal admins have at least a small hope that they can pass it without sitting on a horse shoe. Another problem is the lack of direction given on what the contents of the test. If you want to pass this test, you WILL have to memorize every possible function of the filer. If you think about it, this test should be set up as a core that deals directly with how the filer is set up and basic file serving functions and have electives for the second part. Not everyone uses these filers as Oracle database containers. But then again, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:51 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest What? Nothing on clustering? That's one of the reasons I haven't though about taking the tests. I've been maintaining filers for about 4 years, but I've never had any official training classes, and I'm very unlikely to get budget for training because after all, I've been maintaining them for 4 years. I assumed that the Netapp tests would be sort of like the Sun Solaris tests, where even if you'd been an administrator for 10+ years you still wouldn't be able to answer the NIS+ questions unless you had worked in one of those rare locations that used NIS+ or had taken all of Sun's classes. My environment has never utilized clustering, so I figured I'd fail simply on the basis of that. So how likely is a person who already has several years of administration experience to pass these certification tests without needing to attend special training? -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Fairchild, Peter [mailto:Peter.Fairchild@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:24 AM To: 'Honeycutt, Michael'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest There are three 1 hour tests **The Hardware Test covers the 700 and 800 series filers, FC7-9 and DS14 storage shelves, the basics of racking and connecting them, and a bit on back up technology. **The General Knowledge Test looks at elements of Unix and NT, networking, DOT 5.x & 6.x (Normal Commands only), and some break/fix scenarios. **The Configuration Test examines just that: Can you configure a filer, storage shelf, and basic back up system? Volumes, qtrees, quotas, security styles, VIFs, snapshots, autosupport, OS upgrade, dump/restore, etc. Nothing tricky in these tests. Just the fundamentals. Tricky comes at the Professional level where troubleshooting and performance tuning come into play. How to prepare? Take the Hardware and ONTAP System Administration classes and DO THE LABS. Keep up with the NOW site and toasters (you guys are a great source of material ;->) and you should have no problem. Oh, and there is a grid covering all of the above in greater detail on the NOW site. Peter W. Fairchild Technical Certification Program Manager Educational Services NetworkAppliance, Inc. Desk (408) 822-3320 Cell (408) 877-1596 -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:23 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: NetAppCertTest Has anyone taken the NetApp Associate cert test since the move to Sylvan Prometric? If so, can you give me a hint to what kind of questions are asked. Thanks. Michael Honeycutt MCSE/A+ NT/Exchange Engineer IBM Global Services

1 0

RE: NetAppCertTest
by Maglinger, Paul 11 May '01

11 May '01

Yeah... we could wear them on our "nerd-packs". -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 13:58 To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest Hey, maybe we're using the wrong model. Maybe instead of certifications, we should earn patches like the boy scouts. Then I could work on earning my database patch, my performance tuning patch, etc. It's just crazy enough to work! :) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:47 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest I concur that the problem of "Paper MCSE's" damages the credibility of real world experts that hold the same title. On the other hand, making the tests impossible to pass without knowing everything there is to know about a product is just as bad. I do think that NetApp needs to branch the test out to offer specific tests with area of relivance as in database vs. straight file serving. Any comments NetApp education people?? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:32 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest This just reflects a concern I have with certifications in general. A certification that can be obtained with nothing but training and studying and no real-world experience is of questionable value to me. Likewise, a certification that a person with extensive real-world experience can't obtain is also of questionable value. I agree that perhaps there should be multiple different certifications. The filers are just so adaptable that it's impractical to think someone should be an expert on every possible thing they can do. I might administer a hundred filers but never have a need to put a database on one. Likewise I might never need to serve anything but CIFS. It might make the certifications more meaningful to say that for example a given administrator is certified for NFS, CIFS, Databases, HTTP, Security, Networking, etc. You probably don't want the list to be too long, but the idea would be to try to reflect the common real-world uses of the filer. It could even still be just the one single test. Except that rather than giving a single pass/fail certification, the applicant would be scored in each category and granted certifications in each area for which they showed expertise. I honestly appreciate that Netapp's test are more complicated than simple multiple-choice. It shows me that they're making some attempt to prevent the "Paper MCSE" type of situation, which is good. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:14 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest Yes. There are questions on disk/volume concepts, clustering, how to implement with Oracle/Sql, how to implement with Exchange, name resolution, mixing disks in volumes (IE - disk size, zoning), and so on and so on. The point is, NetApp needs to seriously reconsider the format of these tests. They are very poorly designed. The first 10-15 questions are multiple choice, the next 15-25 were open ended on clustering of all things, next 10-15 were multiple choice again, and then the rest of the test ended with open ended questions. If NetApp is going to make the test so difficult that only their own employees are going to pass, then they need to remove its availability to its customers. If they are going to leave it public, they need to make it so that normal admins have at least a small hope that they can pass it without sitting on a horse shoe. Another problem is the lack of direction given on what the contents of the test. If you want to pass this test, you WILL have to memorize every possible function of the filer. If you think about it, this test should be set up as a core that deals directly with how the filer is set up and basic file serving functions and have electives for the second part. Not everyone uses these filers as Oracle database containers. But then again, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:51 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest What? Nothing on clustering? That's one of the reasons I haven't though about taking the tests. I've been maintaining filers for about 4 years, but I've never had any official training classes, and I'm very unlikely to get budget for training because after all, I've been maintaining them for 4 years. I assumed that the Netapp tests would be sort of like the Sun Solaris tests, where even if you'd been an administrator for 10+ years you still wouldn't be able to answer the NIS+ questions unless you had worked in one of those rare locations that used NIS+ or had taken all of Sun's classes. My environment has never utilized clustering, so I figured I'd fail simply on the basis of that. So how likely is a person who already has several years of administration experience to pass these certification tests without needing to attend special training? -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Fairchild, Peter [mailto:Peter.Fairchild@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:24 AM To: 'Honeycutt, Michael'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest There are three 1 hour tests **The Hardware Test covers the 700 and 800 series filers, FC7-9 and DS14 storage shelves, the basics of racking and connecting them, and a bit on back up technology. **The General Knowledge Test looks at elements of Unix and NT, networking, DOT 5.x & 6.x (Normal Commands only), and some break/fix scenarios. **The Configuration Test examines just that: Can you configure a filer, storage shelf, and basic back up system? Volumes, qtrees, quotas, security styles, VIFs, snapshots, autosupport, OS upgrade, dump/restore, etc. Nothing tricky in these tests. Just the fundamentals. Tricky comes at the Professional level where troubleshooting and performance tuning come into play. How to prepare? Take the Hardware and ONTAP System Administration classes and DO THE LABS. Keep up with the NOW site and toasters (you guys are a great source of material ;->) and you should have no problem. Oh, and there is a grid covering all of the above in greater detail on the NOW site. Peter W. Fairchild Technical Certification Program Manager Educational Services NetworkAppliance, Inc. Desk (408) 822-3320 Cell (408) 877-1596 -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:23 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: NetAppCertTest Has anyone taken the NetApp Associate cert test since the move to Sylvan Prometric? If so, can you give me a hint to what kind of questions are asked. Thanks. Michael Honeycutt MCSE/A+ NT/Exchange Engineer IBM Global Services

2 1

RE: NetAppCertTest
by Mohler, Jeff 11 May '01

11 May '01

*heh* No.."Mission Patches" like NASA. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:58 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest Hey, maybe we're using the wrong model. Maybe instead of certifications, we should earn patches like the boy scouts. Then I could work on earning my database patch, my performance tuning patch, etc. It's just crazy enough to work! :) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:47 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest I concur that the problem of "Paper MCSE's" damages the credibility of real world experts that hold the same title. On the other hand, making the tests impossible to pass without knowing everything there is to know about a product is just as bad. I do think that NetApp needs to branch the test out to offer specific tests with area of relivance as in database vs. straight file serving. Any comments NetApp education people?? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:32 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest This just reflects a concern I have with certifications in general. A certification that can be obtained with nothing but training and studying and no real-world experience is of questionable value to me. Likewise, a certification that a person with extensive real-world experience can't obtain is also of questionable value. I agree that perhaps there should be multiple different certifications. The filers are just so adaptable that it's impractical to think someone should be an expert on every possible thing they can do. I might administer a hundred filers but never have a need to put a database on one. Likewise I might never need to serve anything but CIFS. It might make the certifications more meaningful to say that for example a given administrator is certified for NFS, CIFS, Databases, HTTP, Security, Networking, etc. You probably don't want the list to be too long, but the idea would be to try to reflect the common real-world uses of the filer. It could even still be just the one single test. Except that rather than giving a single pass/fail certification, the applicant would be scored in each category and granted certifications in each area for which they showed expertise. I honestly appreciate that Netapp's test are more complicated than simple multiple-choice. It shows me that they're making some attempt to prevent the "Paper MCSE" type of situation, which is good. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:14 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest Yes. There are questions on disk/volume concepts, clustering, how to implement with Oracle/Sql, how to implement with Exchange, name resolution, mixing disks in volumes (IE - disk size, zoning), and so on and so on. The point is, NetApp needs to seriously reconsider the format of these tests. They are very poorly designed. The first 10-15 questions are multiple choice, the next 15-25 were open ended on clustering of all things, next 10-15 were multiple choice again, and then the rest of the test ended with open ended questions. If NetApp is going to make the test so difficult that only their own employees are going to pass, then they need to remove its availability to its customers. If they are going to leave it public, they need to make it so that normal admins have at least a small hope that they can pass it without sitting on a horse shoe. Another problem is the lack of direction given on what the contents of the test. If you want to pass this test, you WILL have to memorize every possible function of the filer. If you think about it, this test should be set up as a core that deals directly with how the filer is set up and basic file serving functions and have electives for the second part. Not everyone uses these filers as Oracle database containers. But then again, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:51 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest What? Nothing on clustering? That's one of the reasons I haven't though about taking the tests. I've been maintaining filers for about 4 years, but I've never had any official training classes, and I'm very unlikely to get budget for training because after all, I've been maintaining them for 4 years. I assumed that the Netapp tests would be sort of like the Sun Solaris tests, where even if you'd been an administrator for 10+ years you still wouldn't be able to answer the NIS+ questions unless you had worked in one of those rare locations that used NIS+ or had taken all of Sun's classes. My environment has never utilized clustering, so I figured I'd fail simply on the basis of that. So how likely is a person who already has several years of administration experience to pass these certification tests without needing to attend special training? -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Fairchild, Peter [mailto:Peter.Fairchild@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:24 AM To: 'Honeycutt, Michael'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: NetAppCertTest There are three 1 hour tests **The Hardware Test covers the 700 and 800 series filers, FC7-9 and DS14 storage shelves, the basics of racking and connecting them, and a bit on back up technology. **The General Knowledge Test looks at elements of Unix and NT, networking, DOT 5.x & 6.x (Normal Commands only), and some break/fix scenarios. **The Configuration Test examines just that: Can you configure a filer, storage shelf, and basic back up system? Volumes, qtrees, quotas, security styles, VIFs, snapshots, autosupport, OS upgrade, dump/restore, etc. Nothing tricky in these tests. Just the fundamentals. Tricky comes at the Professional level where troubleshooting and performance tuning come into play. How to prepare? Take the Hardware and ONTAP System Administration classes and DO THE LABS. Keep up with the NOW site and toasters (you guys are a great source of material ;->) and you should have no problem. Oh, and there is a grid covering all of the above in greater detail on the NOW site. Peter W. Fairchild Technical Certification Program Manager Educational Services NetworkAppliance, Inc. Desk (408) 822-3320 Cell (408) 877-1596 -----Original Message----- From: Honeycutt, Michael [mailto:MichaelHoneycutt@NC.SLR.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:23 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: NetAppCertTest Has anyone taken the NetApp Associate cert test since the move to Sylvan Prometric? If so, can you give me a hint to what kind of questions are asked. Thanks. Michael Honeycutt MCSE/A+ NT/Exchange Engineer IBM Global Services

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

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