toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

filestats command
by neil lehrer 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

hi, i am running 5.36.r2 on an f760. i wanted to try out the filestats command. here is what i did and what i got: filer> filestats sizes 500K,2M,50M volume vol0 snapshot nightly.1 VOL=vol0 SNAPSHOT=nightly.1 INODES=7723392 COUNTED_INODES=1232941 TOTAL_BYTES=59730144144 TOTAL_KB=51473000 FILE SIZE CUMULATIVE COUNT CUMULATIVE TOTAL KB 500K 1226580 20385888 2M 1230705 24260056 50M 1232894 36493488 MAX 1232941 51473000 AGE(ATIME) CUMULATIVE COUNT CUMULATIVE TOTAL KB 0 3535 77304 30D 93619 8580784 60D 135397 10546160 90D 180611 13984140 120D 228856 19349796 MAX 1232941 51473000 UID COUNT TOTAL KB #0 1172 5319016 #1640 1788 5059896 #1058 248546 2835992 #1218 390 2245924 #354 2129 1755596 #256 3269 1596104 #670 2638 1165100 #470 967 820724 #691 4780 789172 #850 2149 753660 #1265 156 681036 #243 4340 669708 #246 3412 639188 #501 21937 573244 #987 3340 508704 #509 2290 455516 #372 12326 410172 #245 3421 410088 #305 1690 403728 #1597 16762 355136 #980 1348 353960 #1482 186 341536 ... GID data ... according to the SAG i should have got just: VOL=vol0 SNAPSHOT=nightly.1 INODES=7723392 COUNTED_INODES=1232941 TOTAL_BYTES=59730144144 TOTAL_KB=51473000 FILE SIZE CUMULATIVE COUNT CUMULATIVE TOTAL KB 500K 1226580 20385888 2M 1230705 24260056 50M 1232894 36493488 MAX 1232941 51473000 AGE(ATIME) CUMULATIVE COUNT CUMULATIVE TOTAL KB 0 3535 77304 30D 93619 8580784 60D 135397 10546160 90D 180611 13984140 120D 228856 19349796 MAX 1232941 51473000 no matter what i do i get the uid and gid data. also, when it does that it takes about 10 minutes and the cpu util goes to about 90%. is the command wrong or the sag? should it take that long? is the util excessive? and what do TOTAL_BYTES and TOTAL_KB mean? thanks

1 0

RE: CIFS problem....
by Knight, Graham 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

If you set the option: wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root to "off" you will no longer be creating files as root. If you do this, but you still want all powers over the filer from NT you will have to put your username into the BUILTIN\Administrators group in the filers local user database. That is one way to solve the problem that I know of, there may be others. Graham -----Original Message----- From: Talvinder (Ricky) Chawla To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Sent: 2/7/01 5:38 AM Subject: CIFS problem.... Does anyone know why if you are a domain admin and you write a file via cifs, the file gets saved as owner root. Is there a way to fix this ??? Ricky Chawla Laurel Networks, Inc. http://www.laurelnetworks.com

3 2

RE: CIFS problem....
by Muhlestein, Mark 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

This is described in the security FAQ on NOW: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq. shtml#anchor1392387 "Why is the UNIX owner of files I create set to "root"? For CIFS clients that happens in two cases: 1. The mapped user actually is root. 2. The mapped user is mapped by the 'wafl.default_unix_user' option. Since all users mapped that way use the same UNIX identity, they should not be allowed to have owner privileges from UNIX on files created by other default-mapped users. The filer makes the UNIX owner 'root' to enforce this. If individual control is desired separate UNIX users should be created." As explained by others, in case "1" above your CIFS user may be mapped to root because of an entry in usermap.cfg, or it may be because of the wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root option. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Talvinder (Ricky) Chawla [mailto:ricky@laurelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:38 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: CIFS problem.... Does anyone know why if you are a domain admin and you write a file via cifs, the file gets saved as owner root. Is there a way to fix this ??? Ricky Chawla Laurel Networks, Inc. http://www.laurelnetworks.com

1 0

RE: CIFS problem....
by Krause, Oliver 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

Try turn off options wafl.nt_admin_map_to_root Oliver > -----Original Message----- > From: Talvinder (Ricky) Chawla [mailto:ricky@laurelnetworks.com] > Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2001 14:38 > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: CIFS problem.... > > > Does anyone know why if you are a domain admin and you write > a file via > cifs, the file gets saved as owner root. Is there a way to > fix this ??? > > Ricky Chawla > Laurel Networks, Inc. > > http://www.laurelnetworks.com >

1 0

RE: CIFS problem....
by Traitel, Eyal 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

Check settings in your /etc/usermap.cfg on the filer. This file handles mapping between PC and Unix usernames. You probably find there a line like: Administrator == root Eyal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, NACA 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: Talvinder (Ricky) Chawla [mailto:ricky@laurelnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:38 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: CIFS problem.... Does anyone know why if you are a domain admin and you write a file via cifs, the file gets saved as owner root. Is there a way to fix this ??? Ricky Chawla Laurel Networks, Inc. http://www.laurelnetworks.com

1 0

CIFS problem....
by Talvinder (Ricky) Chawla 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

Does anyone know why if you are a domain admin and you write a file via cifs, the file gets saved as owner root. Is there a way to fix this ??? Ricky Chawla Laurel Networks, Inc. http://www.laurelnetworks.com

1 0

MRTG tweaks
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Has anyone written a tweak to MRTG that collects information re: Disk I/O ? One other thing I am looking to track is snapmirror success (actually failure). thanks in advance tw

1 0

RE: SnapMirror 5.3.6R2 -> 6.0.1R1
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

The only real trouble I have noticed since upgrading to 6.0.1R1 has been the disk_fw_update on replacement drives sent from NetApps. They still quiesce the bus when you introduce drives with older/newer firmware revision numbers. Other than that, I don't mind that my snapmirror updates take minutes instead of hours. It was very helpful to be able to create a new mirror without having to reboot the filer. Command line interrogation is much friendlier and the new http GUI rocks over the older versions. sory - I did not intend to get on my soapbox. tw "Peter Tran" <ptran(a)broadcom.com> on 02/05/2001 04:44:22 PM Please respond to ptran(a)broadcom.com To: Tuc <tuc(a)ttsg.com>, Thomas L. White/CHASE@CHASE cc: taob(a)risc.org, toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: SnapMirror 5.3.6R2 -> 6.0.1R1 If you don't mind sharing with the group the types of problems other than snapmirror that you're seeing after the upgrade from 5.3.x to 6.0.1R1. I'm planning to perform the migration from 5.3.x to 6.0.1R1 and would be interested to know the problems you're having with 6.0.1R1. Thanks. Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Tuc Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:01 PM To: Thomas.L.White(a)chase.com Cc: taob(a)risc.org; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: SnapMirror 5.3.6R2 -> 6.0.1R1 > > > in the upgrade to 6.0.1R1 > it mentions that all snapshots have to be blown away before > allowing snapmirror to run again. > But this (as far as I know) refers ro upgrade source as well as destination > Ihave not seen any comments re: Upgrading one side only. > ERRR?? Where did you see this? We just upgraded 2 5.3.4RWHATEVER to 6.0.1R1 on Feb 1, and we were told that you had to do both in a snapmirror because of the version issues Brian found. We are having alot of problems with the filers and the systems since the upgrade, but are trying to work it out. No one told us about deleting the previous snapshots.... Thanks, Tuc/TTSG Internet Services, Inc. > tw > > > > > Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org>@mathworks.com on 02/05/2001 12:45:37 PM > > > > Sent by: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > cc: > Subject: SnapMirror 5.3.6R2 -> 6.0.1R1 > > > Couldn't find any reference to this error message on NOW: > > Sun Feb 4 23:47:00 EST [drp-na1: worker_thread:error]: snapmirror: > Filesystem version mismatch for destination volume nocna1_vol0, reverting > the version and aborting transfer. SnapMirror will retry until this revert > is complete. > > That appears on a destination F840 running 6.0.1R1. Volume > /vol/nocna1_vol0 on the F840 is large enough and is marked offline. > "snapmirror status" shows: > > Source Dest Status > 192.168.50.17:vol0 drp-na1:nocna1_vol0 Idle > > Filer 192.168.50.17 is an F740 running 5.3.6R2. It prints this to > syslog: > > Sun Feb 4 23:29:18 EST [worker_thread]: snapmirror: Destination drp-na1 > could not accept a complete transfer > Sun Feb 4 23:49:18 EST last message repeated 20 times > > What is this about filesystem versions? Is the F840 doing > something about it on /vol/nocna1_vol0? How can I check on the > progress of this revert operation? > > I guess I should be asking: are 5.3.x and 6.0.x snapmirrors > compatible? The 6.0 Data Protection Guide doesn't mention caveats or > incompatibilities. > -- > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" > > > > >

1 0

FW: SnapMirror 5.3.6R2 -> 6.0.1R1
by Joe Luchtenberg 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Interesting substitution for "definitely." ;-) Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Heller, Jeffrey [SMTP:Jeffrey.Heller@netapp.com] > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:25 PM > To: 'Premanshu Jain'; 'ptran(a)broadcom.com'; Tuc; > Thomas.L.White(a)chase.com > Cc: taob(a)risc.org; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: SnapMirror 5.3.6R2 -> 6.0.1R1 > > > ...but it most > > defiantly works. > > > > Jeff Heller

2 1

RE: SnapMirror 5.3.6R2 -> 6.0.1R1
by Heller, Jeffrey 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> > Please note, once migrated to 6.0, you can't go back to 5.3.X, without > zeroeing the disks. This is a false statement. revert_to was better tested with 6.0 and 6.0.1 then at any time in the past. It is slower then we would like, but it most defiantly works. Jeff Heller

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