toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Mike Sphar 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Personally, if I were adminning an Exchange system (which--I thank all the deities I can name--I'm not) I would most likely put the Exchange DBs on a locally attached hardware RAID array. You can get good-quality hardware RAID cards for most servers these days. And in this situation I don't see a great enough performance or reliability benefit to offset the higher cost and supportability risks. As for SAN, I don't trust it yet. It's a little too bleeding edge for my tastes to use it for something really mission critical unless I absolutely had to. It also seems to be prohibitively expensive based on my limited exposure to it. (I just about fell out of my chair when a co-worker quoted me the cost of a Brocade switch.) -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:30 AM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Morgan, Joshua 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

We are currently running Exchange with our Databases located on an F760 we also use Snapshots to do backups -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:30 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps Yes my point exactly, MS is protecting themselves. Is anyone running Exchange with/without issues. As for Oracle on NetApp I heard it doesn't like high transaction dbases. What is the ideal place for Exchange dbase ?(my bet EMC since that pretty close to have local disk) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Mike Sphar 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

My thoughts are that any article that refers to gigabit Ethernet as an "emerging technology" is highly suspect. I wonder if Microsoft is trying to insinuate that Oracle databases (which can run over NAS) are less "robust" and "high-performance" than their jet-based exchange DB, which allegedly can't. Having said that, I probably wouldn't put my Exchange DBs on a filer. Too much risk of something going wrong and MS saying "Sorry, we told you not to. You're on your own." -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services - Remedy Corporation BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD "We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?" - Niels Bohr "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands and hoist the black flag." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased) -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: MS Exchange on Netapps Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

MS Exchange on Netapps
by Jennifer Armenta 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Any thoughts on this from anyone one... why is NetApps saying they are working with MS on this issue? doesn't sound like it from this KB article... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q288/2/12.asp

1 0

Oracle DBs on a filer
by Jennifer Armenta 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

I was told recently from some who has worked with Netapp & Oracle implementations - it works real well for NON-transaction oriented databases. So things like Decision support, data warehouses, or reporting databases - it works well. In fact NetApp comes right out and says that they don't recommend using their box in OLTP configurations. The biggest reason is that OLTP database tend to be lots of little transactions and since you are using NFS (relatively big transactions) you won't get the performance gains as you would with a DSS config. Does anyone have experience with running Oracle with mass transactions that could help me (EMC vs' NetApps)

1 0

F630 and C630
by max chan 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

Anybody know whether C630 and F630 hardware is identical? or any different? I would like to purchase a F630 as a spare for our C630. or any recommendation? Max __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

RE: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT
by Witham, John 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Hi Martin: We use autoexec.nt in a large amount of installed servers, and have had no problems. You might want to make sure the AutoExNT service is starting as a Domain account that has access to the share on the filer. If you want, I could share some of our documentation/scripts with you. Cheers! -john -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hughes [mailto:Martin.Hughes@Halliburton.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:54 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT Good morning, all, I have a small problem (ignoring the larger and more visible ones). We would like to use our F840C as straight disk for some webservers. In order for the programs to register .dlls etc correctly, we need to have a permanent mapping on the machine for both the service account that we boot the machine on and anyone attaching to the machine through terminal server (ie like the C:\ or D:\ drives). We have tried using Autoexec.nt to create a batch file that runs 'net use etc etc' but when we do this the drive mapped is not visible to anyone logging in and you can remap the drive letter without getting an error/warning message. Is anyone else using the filer in the same manner and how did you get around this? We're thinking of using an NT group and forcing a drive mapping every time someone logs into it but this seems a bit heavy handed. All hints and tips gratefully appreciated. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 <<Martin JV Hughes (E-mail).vcf>>

1 0

RE: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT
by Traitel, Eyal 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Let's do it in a Fast, Simple and Reliable way :) This can be done like described in: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3054.html#Config Look for the Additional Configuration Topics, Using and Configuring AutoExNT part. I can send you the utility itself as well, Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, 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: Martin Hughes [mailto:Martin.Hughes@Halliburton.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 3:54 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT Good morning, all, I have a small problem (ignoring the larger and more visible ones). We would like to use our F840C as straight disk for some webservers. In order for the programs to register .dlls etc correctly, we need to have a permanent mapping on the machine for both the service account that we boot the machine on and anyone attaching to the machine through terminal server (ie like the C:\ or D:\ drives). We have tried using Autoexec.nt to create a batch file that runs 'net use etc etc' but when we do this the drive mapped is not visible to anyone logging in and you can remap the drive letter without getting an error/warning message. Is anyone else using the filer in the same manner and how did you get around this? We're thinking of using an NT group and forcing a drive mapping every time someone logs into it but this seems a bit heavy handed. All hints and tips gratefully appreciated. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 <<Martin JV Hughes (E-mail).vcf>>

1 0

Permanent Visible Drive Mapping From NT
by Martin Hughes 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

Good morning, all, I have a small problem (ignoring the larger and more visible ones). We would like to use our F840C as straight disk for some webservers. In order for the programs to register .dlls etc correctly, we need to have a permanent mapping on the machine for both the service account that we boot the machine on and anyone attaching to the machine through terminal server (ie like the C:\ or D:\ drives). We have tried using Autoexec.nt to create a batch file that runs 'net use etc etc' but when we do this the drive mapped is not visible to anyone logging in and you can remap the drive letter without getting an error/warning message. Is anyone else using the filer in the same manner and how did you get around this? We're thinking of using an NT group and forcing a drive mapping every time someone logs into it but this seems a bit heavy handed. All hints and tips gratefully appreciated. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 <<Martin JV Hughes (E-mail).vcf>>

1 0

SSH (Secure Admin)
by Hubbard, Dan 16 Mar '01

16 Mar '01

I was wondering if anyone here is using the "Secure Admin" on the NetApp boxes ? If so, could you let me know if it is a "standard SSH server" that support scp also ? Thanks

2 1

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