toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

Re: legatto
by Rick Hulsey 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

We use Legato on to backup our filers, and it works very well. We use NFS over the Gig-e network to attach to a snapshot at the volume rather than using the Legato client for Netapp. The environment can be a little complex to setup if you have multiple Netapp clients and you need pre and post processing on those clients. >>> Robert Alatorre <ralatorre(a)aperian.com> 02/08/01 04:07PM >>> 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

File deletion problem
by Clawson, Simon 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Hi! I have a file in a directory on the NetApps. I would like to delete it, but get permission deined every time I attempt to. The file is visible on UNIX, can be opened and modified. I have CHMOD'd it to 777, CHOWN'd it to root and still cannot remove it. The directory is writable, as I can create and delete files within it. Is there a way to check who is accesing a file on the NetApps? Is it possible that there is a lock on this file, that I can munually break? Simon Simon Clawson HDS Team Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

1 0

Remove
by Greg Kim 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Please remove me from the list. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

legatto
by Robert Alatorre 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

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. > > >

3 2

RE: filestats command
by Thompson, Tim 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

> filer> filestats sizes 500K,2M,50M volume vol0 snapshot nightly.1 > ... > no matter what i do i get the uid and gid data. > is the command wrong or the sag? The UID and GUI sections are unconditionally generated, so the SAG is wrong. I'll submit a bug report. > takes about 10 minutes and the cpu util goes to about 90%. > should it take that long? is the util excessive? The time is dependent on the number of inodes (the command works by scanning the inode file), and 10 minutes is not an unusual amount of time for it. The command is largely implemented in Java (which runs at a lower priority in the kernel), so even though the CPU utilization will be high for a while, the effect on actual file serving should not be very noticable. > and what do TOTAL_BYTES and TOTAL_KB mean? Total number of bytes stored in all the inodes that were processed, and total number of KiloBytes in the blocks allocated to them. ...Tim Thompson...Network Appliance, Inc...tjt(a)netapp.com...

2 1

Ontap Performance, 5 vs 6
by David Schairer 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

Gentles, Does anyone have a strong feeling of performance improvement from Ontap 5 (latest) to Ontap 6? We're so conservative on upgrading Ontap that we make Orrin Hatch blush, so we've so far only put Ontap 6 on some newly built boxes (an 840 and a 760), and our in-production 760s and 840s remain running Ontap 5 for the time being. I've noticed considerably lower CPU loads for our Ontap 6 840s vs our Ontap 5 840s, running basically the same mix of traffic. Here's Ontap NetApp Release 6.0.1R1: Tue Dec 12 00:47:55 PST 2000 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 74% 3233 0 0 2027 11555 2757 0 0 0 10 26% 3000 0 0 1803 11035 2342 6799 0 0 10 17% 3101 0 0 1456 12189 2452 0 0 0 10 21% 2912 0 0 1356 10535 1639 4121 0 0 10 16% 3174 0 0 1394 12795 1321 0 0 0 10 22% 3585 0 0 1370 8783 1910 3497 0 0 10 20% 3715 0 0 2662 12548 1288 0 0 0 10 19% 3308 0 0 2527 10930 1270 0 0 0 10 21% 2810 0 0 1083 6527 1950 5810 0 0 10 15% 2572 0 0 2060 7238 1022 0 0 0 10 20% 2870 0 0 1298 6752 2038 4061 0 0 10 14% 2574 0 0 1467 7172 1145 0 0 0 11 25% 3090 0 0 2658 10669 3763 4245 0 0 11 21% 3578 0 0 2825 10741 2437 0 0 0 11 26% 2908 0 0 2678 7955 2462 6448 0 0 10 18% 3065 0 0 2453 9017 889 0 0 0 11 Avg 23.4%, 3093 ops/sec Here's similar traffic for NetApp Release 5.3.6H1: Wed Aug 9 00:23:38 PDT 2000 CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 28% 2488 0 0 2472 2711 2172 1620 0 0 15 27% 2704 0 0 1337 5290 3895 0 0 0 15 35% 2581 0 0 1370 4852 5829 5544 0 0 15 31% 3071 0 0 1759 6377 4670 0 0 0 15 38% 3022 0 0 1522 4599 5330 4600 0 0 15 30% 3064 0 0 1875 4401 3005 0 0 0 15 24% 2598 0 0 1175 3102 2148 0 0 0 15 34% 2698 0 0 1508 2284 3664 5015 0 0 15 26% 2759 0 0 1883 2531 1324 0 0 0 15 33% 2554 0 0 1500 2798 4093 4958 0 0 15 24% 2618 0 0 1742 2557 1231 0 0 0 15 30% 2503 0 0 1043 2538 3376 2337 0 0 15 27% 2684 0 0 1559 2760 2228 2577 0 0 15 22% 2408 0 0 1180 2828 1830 0 0 0 15 31% 2523 0 0 1257 2663 3332 4098 0 0 15 25% 2724 0 0 1442 3015 1699 0 0 0 15 avg 29.1%, 3687 ops/sec (Those are 'sysstat 10's) Has anyone else observed similar performance improvements? I expect to have better data when we upgrade an existing heavily-trafficed box from 5 to 6 so there's a true apples-to-apples comparison... --DRS

1 0

remove
by Chris Shallcross 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

please remove me

1 0

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

Jump to page:

2026

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