toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

Defragging / Balancing
by Andrew Siegel 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Here's something that I've been curious about for a while: how does WAFL deal with fragmentation and balancing? For example, when you add a new disk to a volume, does DataONTAP/WAFL do any shifting of data to the new disk in the background in order to balance out disk usage across the volume? Does any kind of defragmentation take place automagically? (Is fragmentation even an issue with WAFL?) I ask because we are having just these issues with another manufacturer's journaling file system, requiring us to spend significant time and effort to stay on top of. -- Andrew Siegel, Head of Systems Blue Sky Studios, Inc. White Plains, NY 914-259-6336 direct abs(a)blueskystudios.com

1 0

More info on Input/Output errors...
by Nick's Lists 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

A bit more info I forgot to include in the first place along with responses to some other folks: We're using 2.2.16-21.7.1smp - We're holding off on 2.4 for now, as our vendor, VA Linux doens't feel comfortable with us moving up to 2.4 yet (I know, we are pushing it, but we don't want to go against their recommendations for now). If this problem is resolved in 2.4, then that'll be another thing to push us towards 2.4. Network wise - Transport is UDP This is occuring on clients in multiple sites, against 7 different filers as well. I don't see how it could be a network problem tho, but I'll go over the configuration of the filers. In all cases, the clients and servers are all on the same subnet, and in some cases, on the sames switch. I've verified that we are getting 100 mbit full duplex negotiation to the switch. Andrew - good suggestion on the soft vs hard. I'll go over my logic for that, and try to figur eout why we're doing that. It may be ahold over from when I had a <insert name of compeditors product here> that was heavily loaded and was responding very slowly. The thing is - other OS's aren't experiencing this problem in this environment, just the Linux boxes. That leads me to think its not a common problem like network of filer config. Thanks! - Nick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Traitel, Eyal" <eyal(a)netapp.com> To: "'Nick's Lists'" <mrlist(a)noid.org> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:08 AM Subject: RE: Input/output errors from Linux clients? > Might be unrelated, and not exactly hitting your problem, but from all we know and hear and encounter, move up to kernels 2.4 and up for real use of NFS in Linux. > > What's your kernel version then ? > > 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: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:18 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Input/output errors from Linux clients? > > > I've been getting some strange errors from my Linux clients... > > cp: Input/output error > and > cat: write Input/output error > > They occur randomly when I try to copy or cat 20 - 40mb sized files to and > from a filer. Solaris (x86 and Sparc) servers copying the same size files > around are not experiencing the same problem. > > The file systems are all mounted with nfs2, soft, bg, intr. > > Has anyone else seen this before? > > TIA! > > - Nick > > >

2 1

FW: More info on Input/Output errors...
by Mark Baenziger 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

We had nearly identical problems with our Linux boxen (various kernels 2.2.5-2.2.14) running off of our filer. We tried dozens of different NFS settings without any luck. The only thing that finally got all of our NFS problems under control was going with a custom kernel with all of trond's various NFS patches in place. RFC compliance is a wonderful thing. Go ahead and compile new kernels with patches in place. Patches for various kernels are at http://www.fys.uio.no/~trondmy/src/. Additional information is (of course) at http://nfs.sourceforge.net/. You do not need to go with a 2.4 kernel for this; these patches can be applied (with varying levels of success) for kernels from 2.2.14 on up. Mark -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Nick's Lists Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: More info on Input/Output errors... A bit more info I forgot to include in the first place along with responses to some other folks: We're using 2.2.16-21.7.1smp - We're holding off on 2.4 for now, as our vendor, VA Linux doens't feel comfortable with us moving up to 2.4 yet (I know, we are pushing it, but we don't want to go against their recommendations for now). If this problem is resolved in 2.4, then that'll be another thing to push us towards 2.4. Network wise - Transport is UDP This is occuring on clients in multiple sites, against 7 different filers as well. I don't see how it could be a network problem tho, but I'll go over the configuration of the filers. In all cases, the clients and servers are all on the same subnet, and in some cases, on the sames switch. I've verified that we are getting 100 mbit full duplex negotiation to the switch. Andrew - good suggestion on the soft vs hard. I'll go over my logic for that, and try to figur eout why we're doing that. It may be ahold over from when I had a <insert name of compeditors product here> that was heavily loaded and was responding very slowly. The thing is - other OS's aren't experiencing this problem in this environment, just the Linux boxes. That leads me to think its not a common problem like network of filer config. Thanks! - Nick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Traitel, Eyal" <eyal(a)netapp.com> To: "'Nick's Lists'" <mrlist(a)noid.org> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:08 AM Subject: RE: Input/output errors from Linux clients? > Might be unrelated, and not exactly hitting your problem, but from all we know and hear and encounter, move up to kernels 2.4 and up for real use of NFS in Linux. > > What's your kernel version then ? > > 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: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:18 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Input/output errors from Linux clients? > > > I've been getting some strange errors from my Linux clients... > > cp: Input/output error > and > cat: write Input/output error > > They occur randomly when I try to copy or cat 20 - 40mb sized files to and > from a filer. Solaris (x86 and Sparc) servers copying the same size files > around are not experiencing the same problem. > > The file systems are all mounted with nfs2, soft, bg, intr. > > Has anyone else seen this before? > > TIA! > > - Nick > > >

1 0

More Info - Re: Input/output errors from Linux clients?
by Nick's Lists 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

A bit more info I forgot to include in the first place - We're using 2.2.16-21.7.1smp - We're holding off on 2.4 for now, as our vendor, VA Linux doens't feel comfortable with us moving up to 2.4 yet (I know, we are pushing it, but we don't want to go against their recommendations for now). If this problem is resolved in 2.4, then that'll be another thing to push us towards 2.4. Network wise - Transport is UDP This is occuring on clients in multiple sites, against 7 different filers as well. I don't see how it could be a network problem tho, but I'll go over the configuration of the filers. In all cases, the clients and servers are all on the same subnet, and in some cases, on the sames switch. I've verified that we are getting 100 mbit full duplex negotiation to the switch. Andrew - good suggestion on the soft vs hard. I'll go over my logic for that, and try to figur eout why we're doing that. It may be ahold over from when I had a <insert name of compeditors product here> that was heavily loaded and was responding very slowly. The thing is - other OS's aren't experiencing this problem in this environment, just the Linux boxes. That leads me to think its not a common problem like network of filer config. Thanks! - Nick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Traitel, Eyal" <eyal(a)netapp.com> To: "'Nick's Lists'" <mrlist(a)noid.org> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:08 AM Subject: RE: Input/output errors from Linux clients? > Might be unrelated, and not exactly hitting your problem, but from all we know and hear and encounter, move up to kernels 2.4 and up for real use of NFS in Linux. > > What's your kernel version then ? > > 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: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:18 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Input/output errors from Linux clients? > > > I've been getting some strange errors from my Linux clients... > > cp: Input/output error > and > cat: write Input/output error > > They occur randomly when I try to copy or cat 20 - 40mb sized files to and > from a filer. Solaris (x86 and Sparc) servers copying the same size files > around are not experiencing the same problem. > > The file systems are all mounted with nfs2, soft, bg, intr. > > Has anyone else seen this before? > > TIA! > > - Nick > > >

1 0

More Info - Re: Input/output errors from Linux clients?
by Nick S 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

1 0

RE: "Case survey" stuff from NetApp
by Mohler, Jeff 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

I would think that it would take more of my time, to load up the WWW browser to work it there, than to insert five numbers between the ()'s. -----Original Message----- From: Sullivan, Justin [mailto:Justin.Sullivan@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:22 PM To: 'Chris Thompson'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: "Case survey" stuff from NetApp Capital idea.. We would certainly like to have more surveys returned - we should like to see EVERY survey returned. You have an excellent point - why not have a web-based survey form? Easy, friendly, quick.. Back in the days when I was a NetApp customer, I admit, I threw them away too - too much trouble to fill out the e-mail form; who has that kind of time anymore? I have passed your idea along to the folks in Customer Satisfaction who can make this happen. Cheers! --- Justin Sullivan Network Appliance, Technical Support Engineer Network Appliance Certified Associate justins(a)netapp.com Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com Tech Support Hotline: 1-888-4NETAPP -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 3:04 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: "Case survey" stuff from NetApp What do you do with the the e-mail that arrives from Quality.Manager(a)netapp.com after a problem is closed with NetApp, inviting you to fill in a "5 STARS Survey" form? I admit I throw them in the e-wastebin. It seems to me that providing only a method of returning these (probably only marginally meaningful) answers by e-mail is absolutely pessimal. If they really want to increase the response rate, surely NetApp should provide a method using forms at now.netapp.com? My vague recollection is that at one time a WWW-browser-based method was offered, but this doesn't seem to be the case now. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

2 1

RE: Adding a 36gb shelf to F740 with 18gb shelves
by Sullivan, Justin 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

So, my apologies.. Sam corrected me. This changed with the new blockmap structure in ONTAP 6.0 and above (all my testing was with 5.3.7R3). I do not need "reprogramming" - I don't live in California. :) I was not saying create a new volume. I was saying create a new RAID group in the existing volume. This is where the 'raidsize' volume option comes in. You can do it manually, of course, but 'raidsize' is set for each volume (not the whole filer), and it's less error-prone to change 'raidsize' to the desired value. You can mix drive sizes within volumes without any problem, but all the drives in a given RAID group in the volume should be the same size. Set 'raidsize' on the volume in question to the size of the existing 18GB drive RAID group, run 'sysconfig -r' for details. When you go to add the 36GB drives - you will have to add at least two if the RAID group is already at 'raidsize' - it will automatically create a new RAID group with your spiffy new 36GB drives. You will lose one drive to parity, but it could avoid performance woes down the road. Lacking ASCII artistic skills, imagine having ten small juice glasses and two big ice tea glasses all lined up in a row. This is where your water (essential for all life, also known as "data") goes. As you fill up the small juice glasses, you can only keep pouring into the two big ice tea glasses, but you won't be able to pour it nearly as fast as you could if you were filling up more glasses. It is still a bad idea to mix drive sizes within a RAID group, because of what can happen to performance as things start to fill up. Creating a new RAID group is still (in my opinion), the way to go, but of course it's your data, your way. If capacity is more important than performance, you don't want to use a precious 36GB drive for parity. - Justin -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Bryer [mailto:bryer@sfu.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:48 PM To: Justin.Sullivan(a)netapp.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Adding a 36gb shelf to F740 with 18gb shelves Thanks Justin. So we can't change the parity disk from an 18gb disk to a 36gb disk kind of on the fly. We'd have to create a new volume and do a vol copy or some such thing. Not sure where we got the idea we could 'upgrade the parity disk'. So we either have to buy 18gb shelves or re-architect our layout. (or waste half a disk adding a 36gb to an 18gb set but that's not a great option as our volume is growing quickly). > > Yes, you're going to have a problem.. :( > > If you add 36GB drives to an existing RAID group of 18GB disks, the 36GB disks will be reported and used as 18GB drives. > > Once a RAID group is established with a parity drive of xxGB, any disks added to that RAID group will only be used to the same capacity (xxGB) as the parity drive. > > If you reverse the situation, and add 18GB drives to an existing 36GB drive RAID group, all drives will be used to their full capacity, but you will run into performance troubles as the volume fills up and the system is forced to write only to the larger disks, thereby reducing the number of physical spindles working for you. > > You will definitely want to create a new RAID group (or a new volume) for your 36GB drives to take advantage of the higher capacity. > > --- > Justin Sullivan > Network Appliance, Technical Support Engineer > Network Appliance Certified Associate > justins(a)netapp.com > Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com > Tech Support Hotline: 1-888-4NETAPP > -- Jeff Bryer bryer(a)sfu.ca Systems Administrator (604) 291-4935 Academic Computing, Simon Fraser University

1 0

"Case survey" stuff from NetApp
by Chris Thompson 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

What do you do with the the e-mail that arrives from Quality.Manager(a)netapp.com after a problem is closed with NetApp, inviting you to fill in a "5 STARS Survey" form? I admit I throw them in the e-wastebin. It seems to me that providing only a method of returning these (probably only marginally meaningful) answers by e-mail is absolutely pessimal. If they really want to increase the response rate, surely NetApp should provide a method using forms at now.netapp.com? My vague recollection is that at one time a WWW-browser-based method was offered, but this doesn't seem to be the case now. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

3 2

Client Pak Restore Problems
by David C Baumgardner 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Is anyone using Legato's Client Pak backing up to a windows system? I have been having on going problems getting restores from tape for the last four months. Each release they issue seems to work fine for a while then quits working(as far as the restore is concerned). The only recovery that works now is the SSID recover with the "-a" option for single file or directory. That can take up to 6 to 7 hours by the time it runs through the save set. I would like to hear from anyone having troubles with Client Pak . David Baumgardner CAD/CAM Administrator Container Engineering Owens Brockway Glass Containers Voice 419-247-8274 Fax 419-247-7608 Email David.Baumgardner(a)owens-ill.com

1 0

RE: Adding a 36gb shelf to F740 with 18gb shelves
by Sullivan, Justin 26 Apr '01

26 Apr '01

Yes, you're going to have a problem.. :( If you add 36GB drives to an existing RAID group of 18GB disks, the 36GB disks will be reported and used as 18GB drives. Once a RAID group is established with a parity drive of xxGB, any disks added to that RAID group will only be used to the same capacity (xxGB) as the parity drive. If you reverse the situation, and add 18GB drives to an existing 36GB drive RAID group, all drives will be used to their full capacity, but you will run into performance troubles as the volume fills up and the system is forced to write only to the larger disks, thereby reducing the number of physical spindles working for you. You will definitely want to create a new RAID group (or a new volume) for your 36GB drives to take advantage of the higher capacity. --- Justin Sullivan Network Appliance, Technical Support Engineer Network Appliance Certified Associate justins(a)netapp.com Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com Tech Support Hotline: 1-888-4NETAPP -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Bryer [mailto:bryer@sfu.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Adding a 36gb shelf to F740 with 18gb shelves We have an F740 with 3 shelves of 18GB disks. It's config'd as two volumes (two raid sets). We've almost outgrown the capacity (we're down to one hot spare and a free disk). We want to add a new disk shelf to the system, but we're wondering if we're going to lose anything by going to a shelf of 36gb disks. We don't have any intention of adding new volumes (or new raid sets), just growing the existing volumes. Can we add a shelf of 36gb disks and then switch our 2 existing 18gb parity disks over to 36gb disks? We'd keep a 36gb disk as a hot spare and use all of the 18gb disks in the volumes (including the 2 freed up parity disks and the freed up hot spare). Are we going to run into problems with this? Or do we need to keep an 18gb disk around as a hot spare as well (ie when an 18gb disks dies and uses a 36gb disks as a hot spare, can we force it to go back to the 18gb disk once the faulty 18gb disk has been replaced?). Are the 36gb disks going to be used at full capacity in this situation (when mixed with the 18gb)? Or is there a better way to do this? Thanks, -- Jeff Bryer bryer(a)sfu.ca Systems Administrator (604) 291-4935 Academic Computing, Simon Fraser University

5 5

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