toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: Oracle DBs on a filer
by Yarmas, Tom 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

I would agree that Filers work well for databases, but I would not limit that to DSS workloads. In fact, I would say that Filers offer tremendous benefits to OLTP environments. Particularly performance and admin features. As for performance, everyone has an opinion, and every application will re-act differently. It is very difficult to make a blanket statement like "it only works for ...". I am with NetApp, and you were probably looking for shall we say, less biased input. However, I felt compelled to respond. I hope you will indulge me. I have used Filers with Oracle while working at Oracle, and had very good performance. I will let others attest to their own experiences, but I will point you to a document comparing perf. of locally attached FC disks with a Filer - http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3105.html I am not sure what you mean by NetApp comes right out and says that they don't recommend using their box in OLTP configurations. I don't know of any recommendation like that. > 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. Relative to what? Databases usually deal in block sizes of 4K, 8K or larger. Since the database block is the smallest amount of data that would be read or written, I don't think that NFS would cause an undue burden. In fact the NFS frame size can be set to match the database block size if that were necessary. But in fact, most databases will do read ahead (like the multi-block read ahead in Oracle) so that larger read sizes could benefit the database even in an OLTP environment. -tom

1 0

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

19 Mar '01

We actually run multiple Databases per Volume beacuse of the way we do snap shots -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hughes [mailto:Martin.Hughes@Halliburton.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:02 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps We have a Win2K server running Exchange 5.5, using the NAS as local disk though a non-routed Gb ethernet fibre connection. Works like a charm. We're using Snapbackup for Exchange and have live mailboxes working without problems. We're starting to go with this solution for all of our major property locations, having been assured by our local NetApp guys that the Snapmanager programs for Exchange 2K are going to be available within our timeframe (Apr/May 01). We don't have huge numbers of mailboxes on the filer as yet but we're aiming to have a 100Gb information store/volume as soon as we can migrate the users across. Only issues I have with it is the requirement to have a volume 2.1xExchange database size to allow for restores (there has to be space to restore the full database back to the same volume) but this is being addressed in the E2K release as well. The one database/volume restriction also adds some overhead but not a huge amount. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 -----Original Message----- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:JMorgan@nuvox.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:42 PM To: 'Jennifer Armenta'; 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps 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: ASP caching
by Lyons, Jim 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

This is a setting on the IIS server. In IIS 4.0, you set this in the application configuration for apps that are set to run in a separate memory space. This is under the 'Process Options' tab. You can set it to cache ASP or not. We run some apps that cache and some that don't on the same IIS servers with the virtual directories located on netapps. I'm not sure where this is in 5.0, but look around, I am pretty sure this is not a netapp problem. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Christophe Smith [mailto:jsmith@publichost.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:37 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com ' Subject: ASP caching We have a cluster of Windows 2000 servers running IIS 5.0, content lives on a NetApp F720 running OnTap Release 5.3.7R2. Our customers use FTP to upload their web pages. IIS is caching ASP(active server pages), customers will make changes to their ASP files and try to view them(view IIS) and they see the older pages. I read about this issue entitled "5.3 Active Server Page Caching" in the NetApp document "Integrating a NetApp Filer with Microsoft IIS". I understand it is an issue with CIFS change/notify events and the way IIS was designed. Does anybody know a way of fixing this? or maybe way to increase the change/notify events, or... For now, we have to restart IIS when changes are made. Maybe I could write a program to manually induce change/notify events? Thanks, Jean-Christophe Smith jsmith(a)publichost.com VitalStream.com

1 0

RE: MS Exchange on Netapps
by Brian Hostetter 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

I use Oracle 8.1.7 on a netapp with a very high transactional rate. That is what netapp does best. Netapp is not the best place to store a data warehouse, but is a great place to store a transactional based oracle DB. We do almost 10 transactions a second running 8.1.7 under Tru64Unix, with a 760. --Brian -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Armenta [mailto:ArmentaJ@mascorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:30 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 Martin Hughes 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

We have a Win2K server running Exchange 5.5, using the NAS as local disk though a non-routed Gb ethernet fibre connection. Works like a charm. We're using Snapbackup for Exchange and have live mailboxes working without problems. We're starting to go with this solution for all of our major property locations, having been assured by our local NetApp guys that the Snapmanager programs for Exchange 2K are going to be available within our timeframe (Apr/May 01). We don't have huge numbers of mailboxes on the filer as yet but we're aiming to have a 100Gb information store/volume as soon as we can migrate the users across. Only issues I have with it is the requirement to have a volume 2.1xExchange database size to allow for restores (there has to be space to restore the full database back to the same volume) but this is being addressed in the E2K release as well. The one database/volume restriction also adds some overhead but not a huge amount. Regards Martin Enterprise Storage/Enterprise Server Group <mailto:martin.hughes@halliburton.com> cellphone: +1 713 303 9214 office: +1 281 871 4124 -----Original Message----- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:JMorgan@nuvox.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:42 PM To: 'Jennifer Armenta'; 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: MS Exchange on Netapps 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 Jennifer Armenta 19 Mar '01

19 Mar '01

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

2 1

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

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