toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13523 discussions

reducing getattr's
by kevin graham 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

Slightly OT, as it isn't directly netapp related, but does anyone know of a way to test if a file exists in Solaris besides a full-fledged stat() or attempting an open? I'm looking through web server stats, and I noticed I'm spending most of my nfs time doing getattrs, which I presume map back to stats that (mostly) test for existance. It strikes me that a getattr is rather painful in contrast to a lookup, but I have no idea how (or if) if the lesser can be forced. I've toyed with the idea of increasing actimeo and friends up, but am not sure of all the caveats of doing so (namely, are negative entries cached? I'm thinking along the lines of DNS's NXDOMAIN cachine semantics .. false positives would be OK, but the false negatives would be baaad). Ideas? Thanks. ..kg..

2 1

RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp
by Craig Slack 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

This looks very promising. Is anyone aware of when Trend is planning to release further products for virus scanning on NetApp filers (not the NetCache boxes). According to the PDF doc at the link below, NetApp has partnered with Trend and Symantec to provide these solutions, but I haven't found anything on Trend's site about it yet. Any ideas? http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/ftp/3107.pdf Craig Slack Leader, NT Services PMC-Sierra Inc., Computer Services Dept. (604) 415-6813 -----Original Message----- From: Gifford, Josh [mailto:Josh.Gifford@ptd.siemens.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 11:34 AM To: 'Manny Kaiser' Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: Trend Virus Wall for NetApp 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

1 0

Trend Virus Wall for NetApp
by Gifford, Josh 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

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

1 0

BudTool transition news
by Marion Hakanson 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

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

3 2

Linux 2.4.X w/ NFSV3, Oracle, and NetApps
by Lance A. Brown 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

Greetings, We are successfully running Oracle 8.1.6 on RH Linux 6.2 Enterprise Edition systems with (almost) all data storage on NetApp F720 Filers. This is running over NFSv2, of course. I've just received a request from our DBAs to be able to create tablespaces larger than 2GB. NFSv2 doesn't do this so I am looking at putting a Linux 2.4.X kernel with NFSv3 support on these servers. Is anyone else running Oracle on Linux 2.4.X kernels with NFSv3 accessing Filers for database storage? Thanks, --[Lance]

1 0

RE: Netbackup and tape compression
by Cormier, Darleen 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

Hi Simon, NetBackup works fine using the compression drivers, in fact I would say that a very large percentage of users, always use compression in order to get as much data on each tape as possible, and cut down on the costs of their storage. -----Original Message----- From: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:44 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Netbackup and tape compression HI Is anyone using Netbackup with tape compression at the DLT drive? Our DLT 7000 will write at faster speeds with compression on, but we dont use it. Is there any reason why we cannot if we use Netbackup to control the write and restore operation? Simon Simon Clawson HDS Team Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

1 0

Netbackup and tape compression
by Clawson, Simon 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

HI Is anyone using Netbackup with tape compression at the DLT drive? Our DLT 7000 will write at faster speeds with compression on, but we dont use it. Is there any reason why we cannot if we use Netbackup to control the write and restore operation? Simon Simon Clawson HDS Team Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

1 0

RE: Block checksum and Zone checksum drive
by Brookes, Matt 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

Max, Benefits: ZCS and BCS drives both offer the added reliability of checksums, which allow WAFL to confirm that the data a hard-drive returns is what was written to in in the first place. BCS drives are formatted to allow this checksum to be stored with the data, rather than in a separate block, so BCS drives offer the same protection but with potentially increased performance, depending on workload. Limitations: BCS drives can be used in ZCS volumes but will be treated as a ZCS drive. A filer with BCS volumes must use DOT6.0.1 or above and cannot be reverted to 5.x BCS drives CANNOT be used on pre 6.0.1 filers. Other Questions: A FAQ on Zoned and Block Checksums using Data ONTAP OS 6.0.1 may be found in the NOW knowledge base: http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs753 Regards, Matt. > -----Original Message----- > From: max chan [mailto:maxchan0@yahoo.com] > Sent: 06 April 2001 10:48 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Block checksum and Zone checksum drive > > > Dear all, > > Is there any different for Block checksum and Zone > checksum drive? in term of preformance, reliability, > limitation etc.. If i use ontap 6x, which one should i > chose? > > Max > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ >

1 0

RE: Data Copy from Filer to Filer
by Israel, Meital 09 Apr '01

09 Apr '01

Jessica, It depends of the type of data you wish to copy: If you need to copy NFS (Unix) from filer to filer, it will be better to copy it via Unix host, using tar command (be carefull not to copy the .snapshot dir). If you need to copy CIFS files, you can use the vol copy (I think you can copy from filer to filer with this) or you can use a copy utility found in NOW web site (I don't remember the name of it). Good Luck! ************************************** Meital -----Original Message----- From: Jessica Fernandez [mailto:jasf@lanl.gov] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 23:23 To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Data Copy from Filer to Filer What are your recommendations of copying data from one filer to another? I have estimated time of 28 hours to transfer 70 GB via a copy command on the host machine. I have tried to copy via CIFS accessing from NT servers using drag and drop. Encountered errors which halted the copy process due to files that were linked to incorrect locations. Unix files in the users desktop were linked to other machines and the path was invalid. Did a grep to locate these linked files in the user folders, and found too many to change one by one. The vol copy command is only useful when copying from volume to volume on the same filer, correct? I am looking for the most efficient way to move data. Any suggestions would be great! Jessica JESSICA A. S. FERNANDEZ ESA-FM Facility Management E-mail: jasf(a)lanl.gov TA-16-661-101, MS-C933 Voice: 505-665-8051 Los Alamos National Laboratory Pager: 104-6707 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 FAX: 505-665-9490

1 0

RE: reducing getattr's
by Traitel, Eyal 08 Apr '01

08 Apr '01

Kevin, For Solaris, look at <http://docs.sun.com/ab2/coll.707.1/SOLTUNEPARAMREF/@Ab2PageView/8183?DwebQu…> This is from docs.sun.com, Solaris Tunable Parameters Collection , Solaris Tunable Parameters Reference Manual The default of the kernel flag nfs:nfs3_lookup_neg_cache is 1 - DO cache negative lookups on mounted NFS servers. Hope it helps, 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: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:00 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: reducing getattr's Slightly OT, as it isn't directly netapp related, but does anyone know of a way to test if a file exists in Solaris besides a full-fledged stat() or attempting an open? I'm looking through web server stats, and I noticed I'm spending most of my nfs time doing getattrs, which I presume map back to stats that (mostly) test for existance. It strikes me that a getattr is rather painful in contrast to a lookup, but I have no idea how (or if) if the lesser can be forced. I've toyed with the idea of increasing actimeo and friends up, but am not sure of all the caveats of doing so (namely, are negative entries cached? I'm thinking along the lines of DNS's NXDOMAIN cachine semantics .. false positives would be OK, but the false negatives would be baaad). Ideas? Thanks. ..kg..

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