toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Re: Symantec CarrierScan info.
by Jonathan Dodman 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

We have a thin client environment, and have been desperately awaiting the filer AV products, as we cannot put scanners on our metaframe boxes, or desktops, so that only leaves the filers !! Up until now we have been carrying out daily scans of the filers, but with this new stuff our problem is soved !! (Hopefully). Jon Dodman Server Technology Services Office +44 (0) 1473 222445 Mobile +44 (0) 771 8149324 dodmanj(a)willis.com Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org>@mathworks.com on 11/04/2001 19:45:03 Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com To: jamie rishaw <jrishaw(a)playboy.com> cc: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> bcc: Subject: Re: Symantec CarrierScan info. On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, jamie rishaw wrote: > > - The product, CarrierScan, sits on a box, like an NT box. > - RPC is set up between the NT box and the Filer (ontap 6.1) > - Any time a new file is introduced, modified, etc, the file is piped > to CarrierScan. CarrierScan scans the file (with Norton). It sounds like the upcoming TrendMicro product takes the same approach as well (their ServerProtect (?) product for the filers, not the thing for the NetCache). > I have a couple outstanding questions with them, like what > CarrierScan's abilities and action "flow" is when it finds an > infected file (send e-mail, send an snmp trap, etc), but all in all > I'm kind of jazzed on it. If it is a fairly large or complex file scan (like, say, a big ZIP archive), what does the end user see when they try to access the file? Nothing? Or is there some mechanism in CIFS or MS-RFC to pop up a dialog box on the client side with a progress meter? > It's obviously not a cheap product, but it seems logical to have one > central point to manage and protect against virii. Integration of > that into an already central file storage system is icing. Definitely... I'm excited about this level of integration. > Don't want to sound like an ad for Symantec, but this product seems > damn cool so far, and it runs on both the filer and netcache. The > two of them working together would make an enterprise pretty > bulletproof. I was just thinking the same thing, and we are investigating moving to diskless thin client desktops, preventing people from even introducing a virus via modem or floppy and saving it to their local C: drive. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" ______________________________________________________________________ The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, delete any copies held on your systems and notify the sender immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this email for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of its content to any other person.

1 0

RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp
by Gifford, Josh 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Here is the press release: http://www.antivirus.com/corporate/media/2001/pr032601.htm -Josh Gifford -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:39 PM To: Gifford, Josh Subject: Re: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp can you send a pointer that talks about this? thanks Manny "Gifford, Josh" wrote: > Hello fellow filer fans, > Just thought I'd let everyone know that I've been running a beta of > the Trend Virus Wall for NetApp (Data ONTAP 6.1) for a few weeks now and it > seems to be working fine so far. It runs on a separate server and scans > each file coming and going. I'm not sure when it is to be released to the > public, but if you have any questions about how it's set up or what kind of > problems we have run in to (none so far), feel free to contact me. > > Best Regards, > > Josh J Gifford MCP > Senior NT Administrator > Siemens Power Transmission & Distribution > 7000 Siemens Rd > Wendell, NC 27591 > Phone: (919) 365-2806; Fax: (919) 365-1080 > Email: josh.gifford(a)ptd.siemens.com

5 5

RE: F740s clustering with FC8 and FC9 shelves?
by Mohler, Jeff 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

Where does it suggest that you cant do this specifically? We can re-visit the SAG documentation if we need to clear it up in the future. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Jankowski Ted-CTJ012 [mailto:Ted.Jankowski@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 8:46 AM To: Jim Davis Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: F740s clustering with FC8 and FC9 shelves? We have a 740 with 2 FC8 shelves clustered with a 740 with 4 FC9 shelves and have had no problems. -Ted -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:53 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740s clustering with FC8 and FC9 shelves? Can two F740s be clustered if one filer has FC9 shelves and one filer has FC8 shelves? The examples in the "F740 and F760 Cluster Guide" suggest not, but I don't see a definitive no (or yes) there...

1 0

RE: Virus scanning for the Netapp
by Muhlestein, Mark 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

On-access virus scanning is supported starting with ONTAP 6.1. See http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3107.html Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Graham [mailto:mgraham@resgen.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 8:37 AM > To: E.J. Jantz; toasters > Subject: Re: Virus scanning for the Netapp > > > Seems like they could send an SNMP trap to another computer > and have it do the > scan > > "E.J. Jantz" wrote: > > > > good luck! my understanding is that the operating system > the NetApp uses > > is too lean to support virus scanning on-access. > > > > EJ Jantz, IST Dept. > > BSW International > > One West Third, Ste 100 > > Tulsa, OK 74103-3505 > > 918 582-8771 > > ej_jantz(a)bswintl.com > > 918 295-4166 > > 918 587-3594 fax > > > > >>> Matt Graham <mgraham(a)resgen.com> 4/11/01 9:55:56 AM >>> > > Am I wrong? These all seem to be for virus scanning of > files going to > > or from > > the internet. Are there any plans for some sort of on-access file > > scanning? We > > have virus scanning on the workstations, but we like to have double > > protection > > in case a computer slips through, or someone's virus > definitions don't > > get > > updated. > > > > Brian Tao wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Gifford, Josh wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is the press release: > > > > http://www.antivirus.com/corporate/media/2001/pr032601.htm > > > > > > I just saw this on Symantec's site today (and dated April 10): > > > > > > http://www.symantec.com/press/2001/n010410.html > > > > > > > Symantec Provides Carrier-Class Anti-Virus Technology > for Range of > > > > Network Appliance Devices > > > > > > > > CUPERTINO, Calif. - April 10, 2001 - Symantec Corp. > (Nasdaq: SYMC), > > a > > > > world leader in Internet security technology, today > announced the > > > > availability of CarrierScan Server for NetApp filers > and NetCache > > > > appliances. The first to protect both devices, > CarrierScan Server > > 2.1 > > > > integrates critical protection from viruses and other malicious > > code > > > > with Network Appliance's powerful data management and content > > delivery > > > > products to ensure the safe and reliable storage and delivery of > > > > network-attached data. > > > [...] > > > > > > -- > > > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > > > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" >

1 0

RE: Virus scanning for the Netapp
by Fox, Adam 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

CarrierScan for filers provides on-access file scanning with ONTAP 6.1. When a file of a type you specify is accessed by the user, the filer asks a registred virus scanning server to scan the file before the user gets it. I hope that is what you were thinking of. -- Adam Fox NetApp Professional Services, NC adamfox(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Graham [mailto:mgraham@resgen.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 10:56 AM > To: toasters > Subject: Virus scanning for the Netapp > > > Am I wrong? These all seem to be for virus scanning of files > going to or from > the internet. Are there any plans for some sort of on-access > file scanning? We > have virus scanning on the workstations, but we like to have > double protection > in case a computer slips through, or someone's virus > definitions don't get > updated. > > > > Brian Tao wrote: > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Gifford, Josh wrote: > > > > > > Here is the press release: > > > http://www.antivirus.com/corporate/media/2001/pr032601.htm > > > > I just saw this on Symantec's site today (and dated April 10): > > > > http://www.symantec.com/press/2001/n010410.html > > > > > Symantec Provides Carrier-Class Anti-Virus Technology for Range of > > > Network Appliance Devices > > > > > > CUPERTINO, Calif. - April 10, 2001 - Symantec Corp. > (Nasdaq: SYMC), a > > > world leader in Internet security technology, today announced the > > > availability of CarrierScan Server for NetApp filers and NetCache > > > appliances. The first to protect both devices, > CarrierScan Server 2.1 > > > integrates critical protection from viruses and other > malicious code > > > with Network Appliance's powerful data management and > content delivery > > > products to ensure the safe and reliable storage and delivery of > > > network-attached data. > > [...] > > > > -- > > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" >

2 1

RE: Virus scanning for the Netapp
by Dawley, Donna 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

On Access scanning is in OnTap 6.1. See http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel61/html/dpg/vscan2.htm and http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs1627&resource= for brief details. The white paper is at http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3107.html. Regards, Donna Dawley, MCSE Infrastructure & Strategy Team MSLP Systems Engineering Support Texas Instruments Incorporated 214-480-7855 ddawley(a)ti.com <mailto:ddawley@ti.com> -----Original Message----- From: Matt Graham [mailto:mgraham@resgen.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:56 AM To: toasters Subject: Virus scanning for the Netapp Am I wrong? These all seem to be for virus scanning of files going to or from the internet. Are there any plans for some sort of on-access file scanning? We have virus scanning on the workstations, but we like to have double protection in case a computer slips through, or someone's virus definitions don't get updated. Brian Tao wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Gifford, Josh wrote: > > > > Here is the press release: > > http://www.antivirus.com/corporate/media/2001/pr032601.htm > > I just saw this on Symantec's site today (and dated April 10): > > http://www.symantec.com/press/2001/n010410.html > > > Symantec Provides Carrier-Class Anti-Virus Technology for Range of > > Network Appliance Devices > > > > CUPERTINO, Calif. - April 10, 2001 - Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC), a > > world leader in Internet security technology, today announced the > > availability of CarrierScan Server for NetApp filers and NetCache > > appliances. The first to protect both devices, CarrierScan Server 2.1 > > integrates critical protection from viruses and other malicious code > > with Network Appliance's powerful data management and content delivery > > products to ensure the safe and reliable storage and delivery of > > network-attached data. > [...] > > -- > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

RE: F740s clustering with FC8 and FC9 shelves?
by Jankowski Ted-CTJ012 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

We have a 740 with 2 FC8 shelves clustered with a 740 with 4 FC9 shelves and have had no problems. -Ted -----Original Message----- From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:53 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: F740s clustering with FC8 and FC9 shelves? Can two F740s be clustered if one filer has FC9 shelves and one filer has FC8 shelves? The examples in the "F740 and F760 Cluster Guide" suggest not, but I don't see a definitive no (or yes) there...

1 0

Re: Virus scanning for the Netapp
by Matt Graham 11 Apr '01

11 Apr '01

Seems like they could send an SNMP trap to another computer and have it do the scan "E.J. Jantz" wrote: > > good luck! my understanding is that the operating system the NetApp uses > is too lean to support virus scanning on-access. > > EJ Jantz, IST Dept. > BSW International > One West Third, Ste 100 > Tulsa, OK 74103-3505 > 918 582-8771 > ej_jantz(a)bswintl.com > 918 295-4166 > 918 587-3594 fax > > >>> Matt Graham <mgraham(a)resgen.com> 4/11/01 9:55:56 AM >>> > Am I wrong? These all seem to be for virus scanning of files going to > or from > the internet. Are there any plans for some sort of on-access file > scanning? We > have virus scanning on the workstations, but we like to have double > protection > in case a computer slips through, or someone's virus definitions don't > get > updated. > > Brian Tao wrote: > > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Gifford, Josh wrote: > > > > > > Here is the press release: > > > http://www.antivirus.com/corporate/media/2001/pr032601.htm > > > > I just saw this on Symantec's site today (and dated April 10): > > > > http://www.symantec.com/press/2001/n010410.html > > > > > Symantec Provides Carrier-Class Anti-Virus Technology for Range of > > > Network Appliance Devices > > > > > > CUPERTINO, Calif. - April 10, 2001 - Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC), > a > > > world leader in Internet security technology, today announced the > > > availability of CarrierScan Server for NetApp filers and NetCache > > > appliances. The first to protect both devices, CarrierScan Server > 2.1 > > > integrates critical protection from viruses and other malicious > code > > > with Network Appliance's powerful data management and content > delivery > > > products to ensure the safe and reliable storage and delivery of > > > network-attached data. > > [...] > > > > -- > > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

RE: BudTool transition news
by Mike Sphar 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

For what it's worth, we had pretty much the same experiences with Legato. Terrible support, buggy software, etc. However, I'm informed by our backups administrator that recently, Legato has changed their tune quite a bit. Their customer support has been much more responsive and helpful, and the latest releases (v6?) is their most stable and reliable release in years. I'm still regarding them with a bit of suspicion due to how often we were burned in the past, but they do appear to be making a strong effort to better themselves after their recent financial upheavals. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 10:40 AM To: Marion Hakanson Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: BudTool transition news fyi. we weren't budtool users, but were legato and wanted to use networker with our new filers. never got anywhere. tech support was apathetic, no followup, they closed cases that were not done. we think they lost the ndmp recipe. we gave up. Marion Hakanson wrote: > > Folks, > > Dunno if it's top secret, or what, but this week I innocently (hah!) > asked Legato about transferring my BudTool license to a new NetApp > that may be coming in soon. Their website says host transfers are > free, so what the heck? > > Anyway, instead of getting an answer, I got directed to my local > Legato salesperson, who informed me that they've finally come to > their senses and are offering a one-for-one exchange to replace > our BudTool products with equivalent NetWorker products, at no > cost other than putting it all back on tech-support contract. > > I checked, and it's not 1-April-2001. Maybe by the Mayan calendar? > > By my investigation so far, NetWorker-6.1 claims it will do everything > our BudTool-4.6.1 does, with the exception of: > > (1) NDMP backup to non-NetApp tape drive. An extra-cost SnapImage > option turns your Networker tape host into an NDMP tape server > to provide this functionality. OK, so it's not quite 1-for-1. > > (2) Cloning NDMP tapes. They say that'll be along soon (I forgot > to ask if I could do that with SnapImage). But one can do a > second backup to offsite media to partially work around this > limitation. > > I'm still not wild about Networker, but "Free is a very good price." > Well, not counting the initial $30k investment in BudTool, anyway. > > So, has anyone else heard about this? I could find no mention > of it (nor any previous transition programs) on their website. > > Regards, > > -- > Marion Hakanson <hakanson(a)cse.ogi.edu> > CSE Computing Facilities

2 1

Old thread revisited (*was RE: Server capacity and performance)
by Joe Luchtenberg 10 Apr '01

10 Apr '01

In searching through the archives for capacity planning tidbits, I uncovered the following posted last March, in part, by Paul W. Brosseau of NetApp: "...Whenever your disks get above 75% full you should be considering whether you need more capacity or whether you need to delete some data. This is true in all filesystem environments." Link to his complete post: http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters/5323.html 1. Is this figure documented anywhere? Is it a standard industry rule of thumb? 2. Does the 75% include Snapshots? TIA. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. 757.858.0600 757.285.1223 (cell) 757.858.0606 (fax) joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com www.data-line.com

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