toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: F720 vs. F520?
by White, Lance 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

To add to this, the F520 has single-ended disks, while the current supported SCSI adapters (for disk) is differential. The F520's SE card is not officially supported in an F720. Might work, but not supported. Lance -----Original Message----- From: Bond, Andrew [mailto:abond@netapp.com] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 4:10 AM To: Jim Davis Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: F720 vs. F520? Jim, The numbers are available on the SPEC website www.spec.org. However, there are no directly comparable figures since the F520 was tested using SFS93 and the F720 using SFS97. I did some analysis of the relationship for another customer, and concluded that the F720 should have about 50% faster response time, and slightly higher maximum throughput. It also supports more storage capacity, at 500GB versus 250GB (raw capacity). You should talk to your local NetApp Sales Engineer regarding carrying the shelves over; it is possible, but has some restrictions. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] > Sent: 12 February 2001 22:06 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: F720 vs. F520? > > > We're looking to replace a couple of F520s with something newer (ie, > something we can get a support contract with). Neither F520 > system seems > stressed for CPU or NVRAM or physical memory, and we'd like > to have the > option of carrying over the current disk shelves if at all > possible. The > F700 spec sheet lists a "Relative Performance" number ("NFS > Ops per sec. > under 10 msec.) for the F720; is there a figure for the F520 somewhere > too? >

1 0

RE: F720 vs. F520?
by Bond, Andrew 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Jim, The numbers are available on the SPEC website www.spec.org. However, there are no directly comparable figures since the F520 was tested using SFS93 and the F720 using SFS97. I did some analysis of the relationship for another customer, and concluded that the F720 should have about 50% faster response time, and slightly higher maximum throughput. It also supports more storage capacity, at 500GB versus 250GB (raw capacity). You should talk to your local NetApp Sales Engineer regarding carrying the shelves over; it is possible, but has some restrictions. Regards, Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@cs.arizona.edu] > Sent: 12 February 2001 22:06 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: F720 vs. F520? > > > We're looking to replace a couple of F520s with something newer (ie, > something we can get a support contract with). Neither F520 > system seems > stressed for CPU or NVRAM or physical memory, and we'd like > to have the > option of carrying over the current disk shelves if at all > possible. The > F700 spec sheet lists a "Relative Performance" number ("NFS > Ops per sec. > under 10 msec.) for the F720; is there a figure for the F520 somewhere > too? >

1 0

RE: Replicating to filer
by Witham, John 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

When consolidating about 80G of group directories to a couple 760s, I used the NT ResKit's ROBOCOPY command. It was free, quick, and painless. Of course, it worked only because Administrators had full access to all the data. If you have locked yourself out of the directories, you may want to look at different software or doing a backup/restore. If you want to use RoboCopy, here's a sample command-line command-line: robocopy F:\Groups\IT Y:\ /V /S /E /SEC /NP /R:2 /W:2 /LOG:U:\IT.txt Description: The commmand is being run at the console of the NT File Server. F:\Groups\IT is the sourcedir, and Y:\ is mapped to the appropriate share on the filer. /V is Verbose /S is Subdirectories /E is Copy Empty Subdirectories /SEC is Copy NTFS permissions /NP is Don't Show Progress (Messes up when used with logging) /R:2 and /W:2 is retry twice and wait 2 seconds between retries /LOG:U:\IT.txt is dump logging to this location I manually had to stop and recreate shares. Not a big deal for ~15 group drives, but for ~1500 user shares, I'll be doomed. I'm looking at using the options cifs.homedirs but have had no time lately to play. Best of luck! -john John Witham Senior Data Networking Engineer Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. V://847.383.3304 F://847.383.3205 mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com -----Original Message----- From: Saklikar, Raj [mailto:Raj.Saklikar@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:05 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Cc: 'dmatarazzo(a)ftc.gov' Subject: Replicating to filer I'm attending a class and am sending this from the instructor's email--please reply to this account or dmatarazzo(a)ftc.gov We are going to consolidate 4 NT servers to the filer and are looking for something that will replicate and then synchronize the shares, user directories and permissions. We have tested Fastlane's DM/Consolidator and I'm wondering if anyone has successfully used this or knows of another product that will enable us to accomplish this. Thanks.

1 0

RE: Virus scans on NetApps and backups
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 17 Feb '01

17 Feb '01

<< So, by turning ctime checking off you will "only" lose the changed permissions, uid/gid of a file. It's up to the user to decide how comfortable they are with that setup. >> Does this apply to CIFS permissions as well as unix permissions? Or does changing CIFS permissions change the mtime? (btw, for us windoze folks, could someone explain what mtime and ctime are?) Thanks, MD -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Manley [mailto:stephen@netapp.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:44 AM To: scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Virus scans on NetApps and backups > 8) Netapp's NDMP dump has an option to ignore ctime. I don't think this > is a good idea because this causes dump to skip files that really > should be dumped. If you rename a file, change its owner/group, > or change its permissions, you probably want that change > reflected in a dump. But these operations only trip ctime, not > mtime. Also, if you read files from a tar or zip archive, the > old mtimes are preserved, so dump may skip these files. Steve -- One quick note. Starting in the 6.0 version of Ontap, incremental dumps will detect when new files are added to a tree and back those up as well -- even if the mtime is set back to an old date. Furthermore, renaming a file actually changes the directory. You have to remove an entry and add an entry. This changes the mtime on the directory (or directories if you move from one dir to another). Thus, dump has always captured the changed names. So, by turning ctime checking off you will "only" lose the changed permissions, uid/gid of a file. It's up to the user to decide how comfortable they are with that setup. Stephen Manley DAM and NDMP Groundhog P.S. As an example of what I mean by the renames, check out the examples below cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(22) ls -lm total 8 drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:35 testdir drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:35 testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(23) ls -lm testdir total 0 -rw-rw-r-- 1 stephen 0 Jan 31 08:35 old_name cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(24) mv testdir/old_name testdir2/new_name cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(25) ls -lm total 8 drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:37 testdir drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:37 testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(26) ls -lm testdir2/ total 0 -rw-rw-r-- 1 stephen 0 Jan 31 08:35 new_name As you can see - the file mtime hasn't changed, but the DIRECTORIES' mtimes HAVE changed. Thus, dump will capture the remove from testdir and the add to testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(27) mv testdir2/new_name testdir2/really_new_name cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(28) ls -lm total 8 drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:37 testdir drwxrwxr-x 2 stephen 4096 Jan 31 08:39 testdir2 cherryhill:/u/stephen/foobar(29) ls -lm testdir2/ total 0 -rw-rw-r-- 1 stephen 0 Jan 31 08:35 really_new_name Once again, by renaming the file within the directory, the file's mtime stays unchanged, but the DIRECTORY'S mtime is updated.

1 0

NetApp 36gb disks - $995.00; 18gb disks - $675.00
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

We have the following "individual" (not in shelves) NetApp drives in stock: Qty 13 36gb FC-AL disk 995.00@ Qty 7 18gb FC-AL disk 675.00@ We can also offer most other NetApp drives and shelves, as well as other used NetApp add-ons/upgrades and/or complete systems, at even greater savings; please call for pricing and availability. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

RE: LCD panel question / login prompt question
by Reger, Brad 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

I know it's not quite as good, but are you aware that you can slip a piece of paper into the clear plastic near the LCD panel? There's a piece of clear plastic on the bezel that covers the LCD, and also covers a small area of bezel plastic *under* the LCD. If you take the bezel off, you can then slip a piece of paper in the area from the back of the bezel. It's not as good as doing it through software, but it's probably better than a sticky label or something taped on the outside (that will invariably get knocked off or messed up in some other way). (on 700 and 800 series machines) Brad. -----Original Message----- From: Jay Soffian Is there any way to display the filer hostname on the LCD panel on the F700/F800 filers running DOT 5.3.5R2 and above? If not, is there any way I can force my own message via an rc_toggle_basic command? (I'm aware of the various led_FOO commands, but these all appear to be to manipulate the shelf LED's, not the head display LED).

1 0

NDMP to legato
by Peter D. Gray 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

Has anybody set up backups to an autochanger controlled by legato networker using NDMP. The legato docs are very vague, and talk about installing a product to make the tape devices in the autochanger NDMP devices, but I cannot even find that product. What I want is for the filer to run dump, with the data ending up on the tape silo which is connected to a SUN running legato networker with legato knowing the tape contents etc. Am I asking too much? Regards, pdg PS At the moment I am backing up to networker via NFS.

1 0

LCD panel question / login prompt question
by Jay Soffian 16 Feb '01

16 Feb '01

Is there any way to display the filer hostname on the LCD panel on the F700/F800 filers running DOT 5.3.5R2 and above? If not, is there any way I can force my own message via an rc_toggle_basic command? (I'm aware of the various led_FOO commands, but these all appear to be to manipulate the shelf LED's, not the head display LED). Also - is there anyway to manipulate the serial console login prompt? I'm looking for something more meaningful than - Password: Perhaps <filer_name> Password: Thanks. j.

1 0

RE: ntfs qtrees
by Muhlestein, Mark 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

This is described in the link I gave you. For example, at http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/conc epts.shtml there is a section titled "Display Permissions vs. Effective Permissions" which answers your question about the "fake" permissions. Also from the FAQ "How do I tell the security style of a file?": http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq. shtml#anchor1390093 Also you'll want to look at the next question "What are these weird Unix perms". If you have further questions please let us know. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:08 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com'; Curt Huyser > Subject: Re: ntfs qtrees > > > well, i have read every white paper and still have a couple > of questions. > > i copied the user hierarchy from our sun box to the filer > maintaining the unix > perms. > the target on the filer was a qtree with unix sec style. > > i just changed the sec style from unix to ntfs. when i look > at the ntfs perms > on the ntfs qtree they look okay. i used both nt explorer > and some cmd line > utils i have. > > my question at this point is are these permissions "fake." > is there any way to to tell? just the "has acl" box in > secureshare tool? > are they still unix perms and synthesized until i actually > create acls? > does it matter?? > should i run thru the structure and create acl's? or can it wait... > > also, i noted that user's sub directories have r-x for > everyone. that is being > picked up from the unix perms for other. which did not matter > in nfs because > access could not get past the home dir perms which only gave > rights to the > owner. > however, if i am in nt explorer as as normal [non-privileged] > user i can see all > the users directories, but cannot enter them by clicking in > [which is the way we > want it]. however, i can cd into the lower level directories > from a cmd line. > do i correct this by correcting the acls, or is there a > traverse restriction i > remember from somewhere? > > i'm sure there is something i'm forgetting to ask. > > thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Muhlestein, Mark" wrote: > > > > When an NTFS qtree is set up, the qtree directory gets an > ACL which grants > > the Everyone group Full Control. If the qtree had > previously been Unix or > > mixed, it might not have ACLs on every file/dir in it. Any > files that don't > > have ACLs will still use the Unix security when checking > access. This is > > explained fully in the security troubleshooter guide on NOW: > > > > > http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubl > eshooting/ > > > > Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:07 AM > > > To: toasters > > > Subject: ntfs qtrees > > > > > > > > > hi, > > > > > > we are migrating our files from sun/NFS to filer/cifs. i > > > have clustered f760's > > > running ontap 5.36r2. for testing the data is copied over > > > using cpio and the > > > unix perms are maintained. > > > > > > i found the note shown below on page 421 of the Ontap SAG. > > > i find it confusing and a little contradictory -- every > > > windows user is given > > > full access, but if you don't set ntfs file sec then unix > > > perms are enforced? > > > > > > "Note > > > When you create an NTFS qtree or change a qtree to NTFS, by > > > default, every > > > Windows user is given full access. You must change the > > > permissions if you want > > > to restrict access to the qtree for some users. If you do not > > > set NTFS file > > > security > > > on a file, UNIX permissions are enforced." > > > > > > could someone please clear this up? what if the unix perms > > > say no?? is this > > > just written poorly? > > > > > > thanks. > > > -- > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > -- > > > regards > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > + Neil Lehrer > + > + United States International Broadcasting Bureau > + System Development Division > + > + voice 202 619-2524 > + fax 202 619-3576 > + nlehrer(a)ibb.gov > + > + " is this crisis an opportunity or just > + another grab the fire extinguisher moment?" > + > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >

1 0

RE: ntfs qtrees
by Muhlestein, Mark 15 Feb '01

15 Feb '01

When an NTFS qtree is set up, the qtree directory gets an ACL which grants the Everyone group Full Control. If the qtree had previously been Unix or mixed, it might not have ACLs on every file/dir in it. Any files that don't have ACLs will still use the Unix security when checking access. This is explained fully in the security troubleshooter guide on NOW: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: neil lehrer [mailto:nlehrer@ibb.gov] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:07 AM > To: toasters > Subject: ntfs qtrees > > > hi, > > we are migrating our files from sun/NFS to filer/cifs. i > have clustered f760's > running ontap 5.36r2. for testing the data is copied over > using cpio and the > unix perms are maintained. > > i found the note shown below on page 421 of the Ontap SAG. > i find it confusing and a little contradictory -- every > windows user is given > full access, but if you don't set ntfs file sec then unix > perms are enforced? > > "Note > When you create an NTFS qtree or change a qtree to NTFS, by > default, every > Windows user is given full access. You must change the > permissions if you want > to restrict access to the qtree for some users. If you do not > set NTFS file > security > on a file, UNIX permissions are enforced." > > could someone please clear this up? what if the unix perms > say no?? is this > just written poorly? > > thanks. > -- > > > regards >

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