toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13522 discussions

RE: /home layout with many filers and NIS automount
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Speaking about this case: > > #auto_home NIS map > user1 filer2:/vol/vol1/& > .... > user9999 filer3:/vol/vol4/& What I'm afraid of, is that if you have 200 users logged in your box, you will have 200 mountpoints, one mountpoint per each holy user!!! I really feel bad about it. Am I wrong? -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Krueger [mailto:jkrueger@qualcomm.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 2:31 PM To: Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: /home layout with many filers and NIS automount On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:47:54AM -0600, Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) wrote: > Hello, > > I just need a word of advice on how to structure /home if you > use automount, have 5-10 home directory servers (NetApp filers) > and around 1000 users. Point of clarification: 5-10 filers for 1,000 users? What model filers are they and I hope they are serving other data besides homedirs! At one point we had about 15,000 home directories mostly on two NetApps - a F330 and a F540 - and they were pretty bored filers. One way to simplify your design would be to reduce the number of filers serving homedirs, especially for 1,000 users. Two good reasons to spread out homedirs are for bandwidth constraints and to spread risk/reduce points of failure. But if you have consistently high bandwidth between all users and filers than 2-4 homedir servers should be more than plenty mitigation of risk considering the cost of additional filers versus the additional benefit (considering NetApps impressive reliability). > I'm personally is looking for /home/homeserver-vol#/user-name > scheme, so my automount maps will be nice, small and manageble: > > #auto_home NIS map > filer1-0 filer1:/vol/vol0 > filer1-1 filer1:/vol/vol1 > ... > filer5-5 filer5:/vol/vol5 This is a very restrictive design because it makes homedir moves extremely conspicuous. It also flies a bit in the face of a large selling point of the automounter - eliminating host-based network paths. If a user is moved from one filer to another, or even from one volume to another, they will have a whole new path to their home directory. Worse yet, any scripts or application configurations which use the full path to their home directory will need to be re-coded or re-configured - YUK! Being able to "hide" the location of a home directory (or any other remote filesystem) is extremely useful. > But it seems like users prefer /home/username scheme and it leads > to 1000+ NIS automount map for /home, like > > #auto_home NIS map > user1 filer2:/vol/vol1/& > .... > user9999 filer3:/vol/vol4/& This is the way we do it, and the way I'd venture to guess most/many places do it. From the user perspective, it is very simple. From the admin perspective, it is easy to manage. We've found it to give maximum flexibility with minimum hassle. > Do you know if there is more elegant solution for this problem? Can you > tell me, what is your preference for /home layout? What do you mean by elegant? The above is pretty darned elegant, and for 1,000 users it should be easily manageable too. We currently have 10,223 home directories and we've got one big home directory map like above. It works great! One recommendation is you may want to use a script or database to help generate that automount map. The easiest way would be to write a shell/perl script that scanned all your "homedir" directories on each filer, ensured username uniqueness and then build the automount map. For added flexibility, we use a small database. Each row in the homedir table has the username (mountpoint under /home), the filer, and the path to their homedir. At some interval a script comes thru and builds the map. Hope this info helps! -- Jeff -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Jeff Krueger, NetApp CA E-Mail: jeff(a)qualcomm.com Senior Engineer Phone: 858-651-6709 NetApp Filers / UNIX Infrastructure Fax: 858-651-6627 QUALCOMM, Inc. IT Engineering Web: www.qualcomm.com

3 2

Can volumes span FCAL controllers?
by Matt Phelps 13 Jan '01

13 Jan '01

Hi, We're probably going to ba adding another FCAL controller to our 840 soon. Can volumes include disks that are on both controllers? -- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu, http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~mphelps

6 9

/home layout with many filers and NIS automount
by Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE) 13 Jan '01

13 Jan '01

Hello, I just need a word of advice on how to structure /home if you use automount, have 5-10 home directory servers (NetApp filers) and around 1000 users. I'm personally is looking for /home/homeserver-vol#/user-name scheme, so my automount maps will be nice, small and manageble: #auto_home NIS map filer1-0 filer1:/vol/vol0 filer1-1 filer1:/vol/vol1 ... filer5-5 filer5:/vol/vol5 But it seems like users prefer /home/username scheme and it leads to 1000+ NIS automount map for /home, like #auto_home NIS map user1 filer2:/vol/vol1/& .... user9999 filer3:/vol/vol4/& Do you know if there is more elegant solution for this problem? Can you tell me, what is your preference for /home layout? Thank you. -- Aleksandr Rainchik, SUN CSA

6 5

RE: F7XX systems; 18gb and 36gb disks/shelves
by Conley, Mark 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

FYI on the used equipment, none of the software licenses on Netapp equipment are transferable. Which means you are paying for hardware only! Mark Conley -----Original Message----- From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com [mailto:ScottUCE@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: FS: F7XX systems; 18gb and 36gb disks/shelves Available NetApp equipment includes: F720 F740s - Qty 8 F760s - Qty 4 18gb disk shelves/drives 36gb disk shelves/drives Spares kits Lots of older NetApp stuff -- systems, add-ons and parts We'd be delighted to hear from you should you have any interest. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

FS: F7XX systems; 18gb and 36gb disks/shelves
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

Available NetApp equipment includes: F720 F740s - Qty 8 F760s - Qty 4 18gb disk shelves/drives 36gb disk shelves/drives Spares kits Lots of older NetApp stuff -- systems, add-ons and parts We'd be delighted to hear from you should you have any interest. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 Phone: 952 935 7282 www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

RE: backup for f760
by Davis, John 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

You should definitely add the BakBone backup s/w (ndmp version) to your short list..I just installed and set it up today pointing at a SL Bullfrog 10K..got about 10mb/sec (ave) backing up an Oracle database..very easy to install and much easier to learn to use.. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Bryer [mailto:bryer@sfu.ca] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 2:37 PM To: nlehrer(a)ibb.gov Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; ch(a)ibb.gov Subject: Re: backup for f760 We've recently purchased an AIT-2 library (Spectralogic Gator 64000) which we are still testing out and evaluating software on before putting into production. We have some DLT-7000 drives around the place, and have been replacing them fairly regularly due to problems that we chose not to purchase another DLT-7000 based library. Based on feedback from this list, we're not even considering Legato's Networker (for it's poor quality in NDMP support). We've been focusing on Syncsort Backup Express, Quadratec Time Navigator and Veritas NetBackup Data Center. > i need to backup our f760, currently about 200GB. i will be testing legato > networker [we already use it] with ndmp and need to decide on a tape system. i > am open to either dlt7000 or ait-2 based stacker solutions. what are people > happy with? > -- Jeff Bryer bryer(a)sfu.ca Systems Administrator (604) 291-4935 Academic Computing, Simon Fraser University

1 0

backup for f760
by neil lehrer 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

hi, i need to backup our f760, currently about 200GB. i will be testing legato networker [we already use it] with ndmp and need to decide on a tape system. i am open to either dlt7000 or ait-2 based stacker solutions. what are people happy with? thanks

2 1

Re: /home layout with many filers and NIS automount
by Paul Wiltsey 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

Large maps are not that bad to manage... I vote for: user1 filer2:/vol/vol1/& .... user9999 filer3:/vol/vol4/& That is how we do it anyway. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rainchik, Aleksandr (MED, Non GE)" <Aleksandr.Rainchik(a)med.ge.com> Date: Friday, January 12, 2001 11:47 am Subject: /home layout with many filers and NIS automount > Hello, > > I just need a word of advice on how to structure /home if you > use automount, have 5-10 home directory servers (NetApp filers) > and around 1000 users. > > I'm personally is looking for /home/homeserver-vol#/user-name > scheme, so my automount maps will be nice, small and manageble: > > #auto_home NIS map > filer1-0 filer1:/vol/vol0 > filer1-1 filer1:/vol/vol1 > ... > filer5-5 filer5:/vol/vol5 > > > But it seems like users prefer /home/username scheme and it leads > to 1000+ NIS automount map for /home, like > > #auto_home NIS map > user1 filer2:/vol/vol1/& > .... > user9999 filer3:/vol/vol4/& > > Do you know if there is more elegant solution for this problem? Can > youtell me, what is your preference for /home layout? > > Thank you. > > -- Aleksandr Rainchik, SUN CSA > >

1 0

RE: performance problem on a 740
by Knight, Jason 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

Are you using SnapMirror on these F740's? -----Original Message----- From: Bertrand HUTIN [mailto:bertrand_hutin@amdahl.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:32 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; vitar_dalloken(a)amdahl.com Subject: performance problem on a 740 On one of my customer's 740 filer, the average load is 72% and reached 100%, with OPS around 200 to 400. On another one with about the same OPS, the average load is 42%. Net and disk input/output is almost the same on both filers. what could be wrong?

1 0

RE: Can volumes span FCAL controllers?
by Mankovsky, Mike 12 Jan '01

12 Jan '01

My apologies for this response. It was intended for a different mail thread. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mankovsky, Mike [mailto:mike.mankovsky@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:06 AM To: 'Chris Thompson'; scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu Cc: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com; jason.santos(a)onsemi.com; mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Can volumes span FCAL controllers? I don't see the reason to get Jess involved at this point. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:45 AM To: scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu Cc: sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com; jason.santos(a)onsemi.com; mphelps(a)cfa.harvard.edu; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Can volumes span FCAL controllers? Steve Losen <scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu> wrote: > [in response to Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com>] > > > > > That's not entirely true -- you can span a volume across controllers, > > > just dont span RAID groups across controllers. > > > > When a volume has 2 RAID groups, is the NVRAM split among > > RAID groups? How are CPs done? > [ Good introduction to consistency points for newbies ] > > So in answer to your question, the NVRAM is shared by all volumes > and raid groups because it is a log of incoming write requests, > not a disk buffer cache. But to resume the original thread, the question is whether or not the writes done as part of CPs are clustered in a way that helps to reduce the overheads of switching between FCAL controllers. CPs for different volumes are logically distinct operations, but are in practice synchronised, either by the 10-second clock or by NVRAM filling up. In saying that one should avoid spreading a volume over multiple controllers, but can have different volumes on different controllers, the assumption is that writes (mostly) occur first to one volume, then to another. If the same is to apply to RAID groups, then the assumption is that the writes associated with taking a CP on a single volume are (mostly) clustered by RAID group. This sounds entirely reasonable, given that the filer tries to write whole stripes, or at least stripes in which as many planes as possible are being updated. Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.

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