toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Re: ssh trusts?
by Rune Bakken 02 May '01

02 May '01

"Traitel, Eyal" <eyal(a)netapp.com> writes: > What do you mean by trust ? In such a way that you can ssh a command to a filer without having to type a password - similar to the way rsh works, but with more security. This is usually done by storing a ssh-identity public key that can be matched with the one used by an admin-user. >>>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. System Administrator When they wake up in the morning, that's as Nextra, good as they're going to feel all day." - Telenor Company - Frank Sinatra

1 0

RE: Adding a 36gb shelf to F740 with 18gb shelves
by Mohler, Jeff 02 May '01

02 May '01

I had fears that the raid group size would be stored in the raid group by some pernicious machinations, but Jeff assuaged any such trepidations. I'll bet Jeff's life on it. --- Gee..thanks. *g* If anyone has filers in South Miami Beach, Malaysia, or Buffalo (during a home Sabres or Bills game)..Im not totally against being flown out there to type 'df' on your filer or something. I -may- even bring swag from Sam's desk.

7 7

RE: Backup solutions for NDMP with F740's
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 02 May '01

02 May '01

Eric, When we went from over-the-wire backups to direct-attach NDMP backups, I saw a big increase in backup performance. Especially in incremental backups. NetApp is very good at finding changed files and dumping them to tape quickly, since on an NDMP backup WAFL figures out what has changed. If you're backing up over the network, your backup server has to parse your entire directory structure looking for changed files. WAFL, on the other hand, can just do an inode scan which is blazingly fast compared to walking a large directory tree over the wire. We generally see 5-10 MB/sec throughput via NDMP to a single DLT drive, depending on how well the data compresses. Oddly enough, database files compress really well and gzip'd files compress really poorly. :-) The only downside is that we use NetBackup 3.4, which does not support the NDMP "DAR" feature. Which means if you have a backup that spans three tapes, and you need to restore a 5K file that's on the third tape, you have to read the first two tapes and and to get to the file you need. So a restore can be painful. But, that is VERITAS' fault for not supporting DAR, and if you use Legato or Syncsort, I think you won't have this problem. (If anyone from VERITAS is on this list... DAR support would be really really nice!) MD -----Original Message----- From: Eric Hester [mailto:erich@nuvox.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:47 PM To: ''Toasters@Mathworks. Com' ' Subject: Backup solutions for NDMP with F740's We have been using an ADIC Scalar 218 for some time with our F740 cluster with fairly good results until recently. Our Netapps provide the storage for our Web and Mail clusters. We have experienced pretty serious growth and are seeing some significant slow downs in backup turnaround time. We have up until this point also just been backing up the data over NFS mounts to our NetBackup server. Being that most of the data comes from the mail server side and we use maildir, it is not a huge amount of data but is a huge number of smaller files. I'm not very confident that NDMP would completely correct the problem, but it seems that removing the network/nfs overhead couldn't hurt. I think I have made the decision to go with the ADIC Scalar 1000 with 2 drives dedicated to the Netapps (1 to each in the cluster) with NDMP and 4 more drives dedicated to the backup server for other systems. 2 questions: 1) What are some impressions on NDMP as a performance gain for backups? Right now the network does not seem to bottleneck the process as we have dedicated 100m links from the servers to a separate NFS/backup network, and 4 channel etherchannel from each netapp to that same network. From MRTG graphs this network is mostly idle (10-20m max) even during backups. I don't appear to be able to keep the DLT's saturated (in other words the activity light doesn't stay on the whole time, so it is not streaming non stop) during backups, and I don't know if this is NFS overhead, or there is another problem. Is NDMP more capable of keeping a DLT fully saturated and therefore more efficient, or do I still need to look at this as a Netbackup issue? 2) A little OT but - Does anyone have any good experience with this particular library (ADIC Scalar 1000)? I loved our smaller Scalar.. but have more long term experience with StorageTek. My salesperson has done a good job convincing me of the advantages of this box, and I am pretty much sold. Just curious if anyone else has any horror stories or glowing recommendations. Eric Hester Director of Systems Engineering NuVox Communications eric(a)nuvox.net

1 0

ndmpcopy changes root permissions
by Chris Craft 02 May '01

02 May '01

When I run ndmpcopy as root: #/usr/local/ndmp/src/ndmpcopy -v machA:/vol/corp/old machB:/vol/sw3/old my permissions are changed to d--------- as follows: Before the ndmpcopy (from) directory and permissions: # ls -ld /net/machA/vol/corp/old drwxrwxrwx 8 root other 4096 Mar 20 1999 /net/machA/vol/corp/old After the ndmpcopy (to) directory and permissions: # ls -ld /net/machB/vol/sw3/old d--------- 8 root other 4096 Mar 20 1999 /net/machB/vol/sw3/old exportfs machA corp -root=roothost machB sw3 -root=roothost cifs shares machA corp everyone /full control machB sw3 everyone /full control machA and machB are 840c with 5.3.7R2 Any input would be appreciated. PS machA:/vola/dir to machA:/volb/dir doesn't change the permissions. Permissions aren't changed for directories that aren't owned by root. Ndmpcopy works fine for these directories.

1 0

Any experience...
by Robert Mance 01 May '01

01 May '01

with a company called Winchester Systems? They're advertising the 'World's Fastest RAID Disk Array' at a very reasonable price. I'm getting pressure from the CTO to get these things in here for eval. We currently have an F840 that I'm extremely happy with. I don't necessarily want to compare the two ... since the F840 is a NAS and Winchester makes locally attached scsi stuff. Just interested any any experience with the company and/or their product. Cheers, Robert -- Robert Mance robert(a)cinesite.com Manager of Technical Operations Cinesite Digital Studios 323-468-5711 (Work) 1017 N Las Palmas Ave., Suite 300 323-468-2180 (FAX) Hollywood, CA. 90038 213-391-7527 (Pager)

3 2

Backup solutions for NDMP with F740's
by Eric Hester 01 May '01

01 May '01

We have been using an ADIC Scalar 218 for some time with our F740 cluster with fairly good results until recently. Our Netapps provide the storage for our Web and Mail clusters. We have experienced pretty serious growth and are seeing some significant slow downs in backup turnaround time. We have up until this point also just been backing up the data over NFS mounts to our NetBackup server. Being that most of the data comes from the mail server side and we use maildir, it is not a huge amount of data but is a huge number of smaller files. I'm not very confident that NDMP would completely correct the problem, but it seems that removing the network/nfs overhead couldn't hurt. I think I have made the decision to go with the ADIC Scalar 1000 with 2 drives dedicated to the Netapps (1 to each in the cluster) with NDMP and 4 more drives dedicated to the backup server for other systems. 2 questions: 1) What are some impressions on NDMP as a performance gain for backups? Right now the network does not seem to bottleneck the process as we have dedicated 100m links from the servers to a separate NFS/backup network, and 4 channel etherchannel from each netapp to that same network. From MRTG graphs this network is mostly idle (10-20m max) even during backups. I don't appear to be able to keep the DLT's saturated (in other words the activity light doesn't stay on the whole time, so it is not streaming non stop) during backups, and I don't know if this is NFS overhead, or there is another problem. Is NDMP more capable of keeping a DLT fully saturated and therefore more efficient, or do I still need to look at this as a Netbackup issue? 2) A little OT but - Does anyone have any good experience with this particular library (ADIC Scalar 1000)? I loved our smaller Scalar.. but have more long term experience with StorageTek. My salesperson has done a good job convincing me of the advantages of this box, and I am pretty much sold. Just curious if anyone else has any horror stories or glowing recommendations. Eric Hester Director of Systems Engineering NuVox Communications eric(a)nuvox.net

1 0

RE: F85
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 01 May '01

01 May '01

The F85 and the IP4700 are NOT in the same class of equipment. F85 is for a small office, IP4700 is for a decent sized department (couple hundred users). If the F85 is what you need, the IP4700 is a total overkill. If the IP4700 is in the class you need, you should be looking at an F740 or F760 cluster, not an F85. MD -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:44 PM To: Toasters Subject: F85 Has anybody had any experience with the F85? I'm most interested in the hardware. As a continuation of my last message, EMC is pushing hard with an IP4700 against an F85. They've been touting the reliability of their box and that it has no single point of failure (2 processors, etc). I'd like to know if anyone on the list has deployed the F85 and can give a reference on them. Also, does anyone know what type of failover the IP4700 is actually providing between their 2 storage processors. It doesn't look at first glance that the surviving processor takes over the MAC address of the dead processor. It just starts arping for the IP address of its partner. barry

2 1

RE: ssh trusts?
by Traitel, Eyal 01 May '01

01 May '01

What do you mean by trust ? You can use QuickSetup software to setup a 6.1 and up filer into a Win2K domain in a safe way. Try: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/qsetup/ Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, LCA, NetApp CA Network Appliance BV Holland Office Center Kruisweg 799b 2132 NG, Hoofddorp The Netherlands Office: +31 23 567 9685 Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 Email: eyal(a)netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Nick's Lists [mailto:mrlist@noid.org] Sent: Tue, May 01, 2001 2:07 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: ssh trusts? Is there a way to setup a trust via ssh from a host to a filer running secure admin? TIA - N

1 0

RE: F85
by Whitfield, Charlie 01 May '01

01 May '01

While I don't disagree with Tom, he doesn't mention that F85 can do many of the tricks that currently reside in the wish lists of others. For example: SnapRestore: near-instant full volume restore (the trad option is lengthy tape restore) without affecting other volumes on the same filer. No point having snaps if you can't get the data back. SnapMirror: asynch mirroring over any distance. This is done volume-volume so you can mirror a bunch of geo-dispersed F85s to something larger at HQ. Etc, etc, etc. The key to F85 is that, with the main exception of Cluster Failover, it can perform just about all the tricks of it's larger data centre siblings. I believe that NetApp are unique in offering this downward scalability (i.e. that a smaller solution shouldn't be penalised in the functionality department). Naturally, if your environment grows, you don't have to re-engineer your processes, just plug in a bigger filer. If you want head-redundancy, think F740C which, like the IP4700, won't fit under your desk. :-) Cheers, CAW Charlie Whitfield NetApp UK FBI voice: +44 20 8756 6762 mobile: +44 7718 160954 email: caw(a)netapp.com Repel the bozo invasion! -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: 30 April 2001 19:45 To: 'Barry Lustig'; Toasters Subject: RE: F85 The F85 and the IP4700 are NOT in the same class of equipment. F85 is for a small office, IP4700 is for a decent sized department (couple hundred users). If the F85 is what you need, the IP4700 is a total overkill. If the IP4700 is in the class you need, you should be looking at an F740 or F760 cluster, not an F85. MD -----Original Message----- From: Barry Lustig [mailto:barry@lustig.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:44 PM To: Toasters Subject: F85 Has anybody had any experience with the F85? I'm most interested in the hardware. As a continuation of my last message, EMC is pushing hard with an IP4700 against an F85. They've been touting the reliability of their box and that it has no single point of failure (2 processors, etc). I'd like to know if anyone on the list has deployed the F85 and can give a reference on them. Also, does anyone know what type of failover the IP4700 is actually providing between their 2 storage processors. It doesn't look at first glance that the surviving processor takes over the MAC address of the dead processor. It just starts arping for the IP address of its partner. barry

1 0

ssh trusts?
by Nick's Lists 01 May '01

01 May '01

Is there a way to setup a trust via ssh from a host to a filer running secure admin? TIA - N

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