toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

Crashing netcache and retrieval of core-file
by Rune Bakken 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

I seem to be unable to retrieve the core-file that NetApp support wants me to send, as my (borrowed) netcache C720 keeps booting when starting the netcache software. I have no problem booting without rc, but then again I have no solution to how to get the core file. I am running NetCache 5.0D14 Anyone with a solution to how to get the core-file? FYI: This is the PANIC message I receive, just in case someone else has seen this. PANIC: MM fault MMCSR=1, type=0, VA=0x61fcf7fff, PC=0xfffffc00005783a0, RA=0xfffffc0000700d90 in process sthread_loop on release NetApp Release 5.0D14 on Mon Feb 12 11:11:28 2001 >>>>>>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. System Administrator When they wake up in the morning, that's as Nextra, good as they're going to feel all day." - Telenor Company - Frank Sinatra

2 1

ntfs qtrees
by neil lehrer 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

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

1 0

I NEVER ASKED FOR BEEING ON THIS MAILING LIST
by Cour, Didier 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

remove me immediatly from that list d-cour(a)ti.com -----Original Message----- From: Knight, Jason [mailto:Jason.Knight@citadelgroup.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:29 PM To: 'Levent Kaptanoglu'; Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Levent, It is normal (or at least not unusual) to see disk errors during a RAID SCRUB, RAID SCRUB is looking for bad media. If you start seeing these errors occur several times a day and on the same disk when the system is not performing a RAID SCRUB then you might consider failing the disk at a convenient time and RMA'ing it if you have enough spares, but you should talk with NetApp support first. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Levent Kaptanoglu [mailto:lkaptan@pro-link.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:35 AM To: Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error I have the same error Could you find any solution ? ===== MESSAGES ===== Sun Feb 11 00:00:04 EET [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [statd]: 1:00am up 17 days, 16:39 1421477327 NFS ops, 6827 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [raid_scrub_admin]: Beginning disk scrubbing... Sun Feb 11 01:23:28 EET [CIFSAuthen]: CIFS - machine password changed on DC \\MYNETDC1 Sun Feb 11 02:00:00 EET [statd]: 2:00am up 17 days, 17:39 1423199759 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:00:00 EET [statd]: 3:00am up 17 days, 18:39 1424335238 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:05:12 EET [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.2(0xfffffc0000caa4c8): op 0x28:016cf560:0080 sector 23917993 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Sun Feb 11 04:00:00 EET [statd]: 4:00am up 17 days, 19:39 1424889672 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:00:00 EET [statd]: 5:00am up 17 days, 20:38 1425181655 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 parity inconsistencies Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 media errors Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Disk scrubbing finished... -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Knight, Jason Sent: 10 Þubat 2001 Cumartesi 18:27 To: 'Eff Norwood'; Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

1 0

RE: Recovered Error
by Knight, Jason 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Levent, It is normal (or at least not unusual) to see disk errors during a RAID SCRUB, RAID SCRUB is looking for bad media. If you start seeing these errors occur several times a day and on the same disk when the system is not performing a RAID SCRUB then you might consider failing the disk at a convenient time and RMA'ing it if you have enough spares, but you should talk with NetApp support first. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Levent Kaptanoglu [mailto:lkaptan@pro-link.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:35 AM To: Knight, Jason Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error I have the same error Could you find any solution ? ===== MESSAGES ===== Sun Feb 11 00:00:04 EET [asup_main]: System Notification mail sent Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [statd]: 1:00am up 17 days, 16:39 1421477327 NFS ops, 6827 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 01:00:00 EET [raid_scrub_admin]: Beginning disk scrubbing... Sun Feb 11 01:23:28 EET [CIFSAuthen]: CIFS - machine password changed on DC \\MYNETDC1 Sun Feb 11 02:00:00 EET [statd]: 2:00am up 17 days, 17:39 1423199759 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:00:00 EET [statd]: 3:00am up 17 days, 18:39 1424335238 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 03:05:12 EET [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.2(0xfffffc0000caa4c8): op 0x28:016cf560:0080 sector 23917993 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Sun Feb 11 04:00:00 EET [statd]: 4:00am up 17 days, 19:39 1424889672 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:00:00 EET [statd]: 5:00am up 17 days, 20:38 1425181655 NFS ops, 6829 CIFS ops, 133 HTTP ops Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 parity inconsistencies Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Scrub found 0 media errors Sun Feb 11 05:45:45 EET [consumer]: Disk scrubbing finished... -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Knight, Jason Sent: 10 Þubat 2001 Cumartesi 18:27 To: 'Eff Norwood'; Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Recovered Error Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

1 0

RE: Recovered Error
by Knight, Jason 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Have you replaced the LRC? An LRC going bad can show up as disk errors. Jason Knight -----Original Message----- From: Eff Norwood [mailto:eff@cynaptic.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:15 PM To: Maximus Moua; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Recovered Error What release of ONTAP are you running? Effrem Norwood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maximus Moua" <maximus(a)saba.com> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Recovered Error > Hi All, > > I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector > error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL > controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data > drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing > but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. > NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I > wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this > one alone. > > Thanks, > > -Max > > Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N > 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. > Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op > 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op > 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, > 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op > 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op > 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op > 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op > 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op > 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) > Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op > 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op > 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) > Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, > 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops > Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op > 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) > Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op > 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) > Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume > vol0, RAID group 0, complete. >

2 1

Recovered Error
by Maximus Moua 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Hi All, I recently acquired a filer F720 with 36 G shelf which exibited a sector error in the Message log. I have tried swapping drives, replacing FCAL controller, cable and terminator. The problem occurs on all the data drives, except the spare, during heavy disk activity such as disk scrubbing but less frequently and randomly even when disk activity should be minimal. NetApp tells me this is a soft error and does not warrant concern but I wonder if any of you have experience this and can assure me to leave this one alone. Thanks, -Max Wed Feb 7 19:26:45 PST [raid_disk_admin]: Spare disk 1.4 (S/N 680A845B1K) has been added to the system. Wed Feb 7 19:33:46 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbbcb8): op 0x28:00529380:0080 sector 5411723 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 19:41:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cbb978): op 0x28:00a79900:0080 sector 10983747 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:00:00 PST [statd]: 8:00pm up 12 days, 29 mins, 3 NFS ops, 48398305 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops Wed Feb 7 20:16:35 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000cade18): op 0x28:020c22c0:0080 sector 34349865 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 20:17:56 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cc1e38): op 0x28:021a93c0:0080 sector 35296301 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:18:52 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cc7ad8): op 0x28:02249240:0080 sector 35951273 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:20:51 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.5(0xfffffc0000cd6cf8): op 0x28:0239ed40:0080 sector 37350752 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 20:25:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.0(0xfffffc0000ca6298): op 0x28:02692bc0:0080 sector 40447008 recovered error - (1 16, 0) Wed Feb 7 20:44:04 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb8718): op 0x28:033932c0:0080 sector 54080224 recovered error - (1 17, 7) Wed Feb 7 20:49:34 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000cb3df8): op 0x28:0378e938:0080 sector 58255736 recovered error - (1 17, 1) Wed Feb 7 21:00:00 PST [statd]: 9:00pm up 12 days, 1:29 3 NFS ops, 48418877 CIFS ops, 810 HTTP ops Wed Feb 7 21:03:25 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca99d8): op 0x28:041f4af0:0080 sector 69159705 recovered error - (1 17, 3) Wed Feb 7 21:04:13 PST [isp2100_main]: Disk 1.1(0xfffffc0000ca5c18): op 0x28:04289df0:0080 sector 69770779 recovered error - (1 17, 7) Wed Feb 7 21:32:53 PST [consumer]: Reconstruction of data disk in volume vol0, RAID group 0, complete.

2 1

remove
by Max Chan 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

Please remove me from the list. Thank you. Max

1 0

RE: legato
by Benn, Paul 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Yes, that is correct. We also track the DOS "archive" bit on files with UNIX-style permissions. Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@Remedy.COM] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:38 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato Actually, I believe that if you want to preserve both CIFS and NFS acls (probably only relevant if you have shares in mixed or CIFS mode), then backing up over CIFS is supposed to preserve both the CIFS and NFS permissions. Backing up over NFS only saves the NFS permissions and you will likely lose CIFS ACLs when you restore. That's my understanding anyway. We back up over NFS here, but all my shares are in UNIX mode. -- 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: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:50 AM To: Melvin, Grant; 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato make that 5.... don't forget backup over CIFS by way of a UNC path. Granted, it's not the most desirable way to backup a filer with NetWorker but it can be done. :) Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Melvin, Grant [mailto:Grant.Melvin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:54 PM To: 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legatto Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

1 0

RE: legato
by Mike Sphar 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Actually, I believe that if you want to preserve both CIFS and NFS acls (probably only relevant if you have shares in mixed or CIFS mode), then backing up over CIFS is supposed to preserve both the CIFS and NFS permissions. Backing up over NFS only saves the NFS permissions and you will likely lose CIFS ACLs when you restore. That's my understanding anyway. We back up over NFS here, but all my shares are in UNIX mode. -- 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: Benn, Paul [mailto:paul.benn@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:50 AM To: Melvin, Grant; 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legato make that 5.... don't forget backup over CIFS by way of a UNC path. Granted, it's not the most desirable way to backup a filer with NetWorker but it can be done. :) Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Melvin, Grant [mailto:Grant.Melvin@netapp.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:54 PM To: 'Robert Alatorre'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: legatto Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

1 0

RE: legatto
by Melvin, Grant 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Hi, Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this question. As I see it Legato currently provide 4 ways to backup a NetApp filer: 1. BudTool 2. NFS 3. NetWorker NetApp Client 4. NDMP-compliant NetWorker It would be interesting (to me at least) to hear experiences with each variant. Option 4 is essentially replacing option 1 since that option is being discontinued. Cheers, Grant =========== grant(a)netapp.com ========== Grant Melvin === === Software Development Manager === === Data Availability & Management === |\ | __ ___ /\ __ __ === Network Appliance === | \ | |__ | /__\ |__| |__| === 475 East Java Drive === | \| |__ | / \ | | (R) === Sunnyvale === === California, 94089 === === Tel:(408)822-6761 =========== Network Appliance ========== Fax:(408)822-4578 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Alatorre [mailto:ralatorre@aperian.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 2:08 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: legatto Anybody have any bad or good experience using legatto as backup for the net app filer? Bob Alatorre Systems Support Engineer Office 512-226-8753 Cell 512-658-9110 ralatorre(a)aperian.com > ******************* Internet Email Confidentiality Footer > ******************* > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not use, > copy, disclose or deliver this message to anyone. If you have received > this message in error, kindly notify the sender by reply email or at the > phone number listed above, and then delete this message. > > >

4 3

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