toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

Spinning up and down isn't the issue. According to the warning displayed when you do a disk_fw_update, even upgrading a single disk, "It involves... suspending all disk I/O to all disks while that is happening" SUSPENDING ALL DISK I/O TO **ALL** (not ONE) DISKS. That's a problem in my environment. So I guess the question is, is the notice wrong and when you're only doing a disk_fw_update on a single disk that's allocated as a spare, it doesn't suspend I/O to ALL disks? ONTAP 6 will be very cool. I'm looking forward to being able to install it soon. I particularly appreciate the new logging features so I can see who did what when. Thanks, MD -----Original Message----- From: Krause, Oliver To: 'Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Sent: 1/8/01 3:50 PM Subject: RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 As i said you can upgrade a single disk with "disk_fw_update <disk>" without service disruption while this disk is a spare. Again, you have to specify the disk. Also does a disk firmware upgrade not take 2 minutes per disk if you use disk_fw_update. Oliver BTW: ONTAP 6.0 and higher is supposed to do a automatic update when you insert a disk with older firmware (have not tried it yet). Cool, isn't it?

3 2

RE: HSM
by Cormier, Darleen 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

Hi Steve, The reason that neither Veritas Storage Replicator or other HSM packages currently support HSM migration of data to and from NetApp filers is because DataONTAP does NOT support DMAPI protocol. DMAPI means Data Management Application Programming Interface and this along with the X/Open Data Storage Management (XDSM) standard allow HSM functionality across a wide range of operating environments without sacrificing system reliability. Without this, the HSM software has no idea of file attributes or location. This reason I'm giving you all this exciting info (YAWN) is that most, if not all, HSM packages use these protocols. Until NetApp is able to support these protocols, or the 3rd party companies are able to come up with some other way of doing HSM, we will not be able to offer an HSM solution to our customers. Now, Good news/ Bad News. The good news is we are receiving more and more requests for this functionality, and I do know that engineering is looking at possibly adding support for the DMAPI protocol. The bad news is that no date has been set for beginning to implement this. Sorry we can't tell you anything better. -----Original Message----- From: SteveRoche(a)datalink.com [mailto:SteveRoche@datalink.com] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 12:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: HSM Hello everyone! We are considering implementing an F840 with around 4TB into a mixed UNIX and Win2K environment. My question to this much respected community is can we implement an HSM solution like say Veritas Storage Replicator to extract stale files and put them out to tape with a Netapp? I have been told know but am hoping yes. Thanks in advance Steve Roche sroche(a)datalink.com

2 1

cifs and win nt res kit SU cmd
by neil lehrer 09 Jan '01

09 Jan '01

hi, i am just bringing up an f760 cluster with cifs and nfs. i had just configured my shares and went to edit some of the files in \etc with wordpad and found that i was getting access denied, but could edit them when going thru nfs and using vi. after checking a bunch of things it turned out that something wasn't happy about the way i was accessing the files - using the SU cmd in the nt 4 res kit. normally i log into my nt machine locally and if i want to do any domain admin stuff i just open a cmd window and SU to my domain admin acct. saves me from rebooting or using another machine. in this case i can SU and use srvmgr against the filer with no problem, but actually editing files that require administrator privileges doesn't work. i do have the correct mappings in usermap.cfg and editing does work properly if i do a "normal" domain admin login. any ideas? anybody ever get this to work? i really like being able to use SU this way and [in the past] it made it easy to test access against other ids without moving to another machine or rebooting? thanks. -- regards

3 2

RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2
by Krause, Oliver 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

As i said you can upgrade a single disk with "disk_fw_update <disk>" without service disruption while this disk is a spare. Again, you have to specify the disk. Also does a disk firmware upgrade not take 2 minutes per disk if you use disk_fw_update. Oliver BTW: ONTAP 6.0 and higher is supposed to do a automatic update when you insert a disk with older firmware (have not tried it yet). Cool, isn't it? > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] > Sent: Montag, 8. Januar 2001 17:39 > To: 'Krause, Oliver'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 > > > Just upgrading one disk still takes downtime for the whole > system. The > filer may be up, but if I can't access my data, effectively, > it's down. > > "Downloading disk firmware can be disruptive to the system. > It involves spinning down and then spinning up all > affected disks, and suspending all disk I/O to all disks while > that is happening. This may take up to 2 minutes to complete. > This delay may cause clients to hang, and may cause > CIFS clients to drop sessions." > > It should be noted that this notice can be misleading. It > actually takes up > to two minutes PER TYPE OF DISK to complete a disk_fw_update. > So if you > have two models of 18 GB drives and two models of 36 GB > drives, if can take > up to eight minutes to flash the firmware. Been there, done > that. Was a > little surprised the first time. :) > > Since replacement disks often ship with firmware different > than the level > currently being used on a filer, it would be nice if > (a) NetApp checked autosupport logs and pre-flashed the > firmware for you > before sending you the disk > (b) You could flash a single disk w/o disrupting all I/O for > the entire > filer. Especially if the disk is marked as a spare and > therefore not part > of any volume. > > If NetApp wanted to get *really* ambitious (I dunno, for ONTAP 6.5 or > something), this would be wild: flash firmware on a volume > one disk at a > time, and keep the volume online. While each disk is being > flashed, use the > parity disk to serve data, and keep track of writes somewhere > to get the > flashed disk back up to synch when the flash is done. > > It's too bad NetApp doesn't offer mirroring, since if you had > mirrored sets > this would be a real piece of cake. Just flash half a mirror > while the > other half served data. > > Online disk_fw_update would be a big help in five 9s environments. > > MD > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Krause, Oliver [mailto:OKrause@netapp.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 5:56 AM > To: 'Premanshu Jain'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 > > > You can specify which disk to upgrade. Try > > disk_fw_update <diskname> > > This works while the system is running. > > Oliver > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Premanshu Jain [mailto:PrJain@shastanets.com] > > Sent: Freitag, 5. Januar 2001 23:31 > > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > > Subject: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 > > > > > > I have a 840 cluster. Whenever I add new disks, the cluster > > starts throwing > > 'doenrev disk firmware' error messages. NetApps suggests doing a > > disk_fw_update on the disk and strictly says "NO need to Halt > > a filer'. > > Reality is totally different. The command specifically asks > > you wether the > > cluster partner is on Halt-OK prompt or not? > > > > The workaround I am doing, intitiate a takeover and do the > > disk_fw_update. > > However, this still needs to do a takeover/giveback and 2 minutes of > > downtime...Adding/replacing bad disks is a regular activity... > > > > Any suggestions..? > > >

1 0

RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2
by Witham, John 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

I may be wrong, but here's the scenario I envision when you're talking about this: a) Disk Fails b) RMA c) New disk arrives, with old firmware. d) Disk added as HotSpare - DOWNREV DISKS PRESENT! error abounds. At this point, the new drive is a hotspare. If it's the only downrev disk, you could safely do a disk_fw_update, and it would take just the hotspare offline and upgrade it. I would be on the safe side and specify the disk to upgrade, but all in all, the Filer is still alive and serving data. The key phrase below is "It involves spinning down and then spinning up all AFFECTED disks". -john John Witham MCSE, MCP+i, A+ Senior Systems Engineer Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. V://847.383.3304 F://847.383.3205 mailto://jwitham@takedapharm.com -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:39 AM To: 'Krause, Oliver'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 Just upgrading one disk still takes downtime for the whole system. The filer may be up, but if I can't access my data, effectively, it's down. "Downloading disk firmware can be disruptive to the system. It involves spinning down and then spinning up all affected disks, and suspending all disk I/O to all disks while that is happening. This may take up to 2 minutes to complete. This delay may cause clients to hang, and may cause CIFS clients to drop sessions." It should be noted that this notice can be misleading. It actually takes up to two minutes PER TYPE OF DISK to complete a disk_fw_update. So if you have two models of 18 GB drives and two models of 36 GB drives, if can take up to eight minutes to flash the firmware. Been there, done that. Was a little surprised the first time. :) Since replacement disks often ship with firmware different than the level currently being used on a filer, it would be nice if (a) NetApp checked autosupport logs and pre-flashed the firmware for you before sending you the disk (b) You could flash a single disk w/o disrupting all I/O for the entire filer. Especially if the disk is marked as a spare and therefore not part of any volume. If NetApp wanted to get *really* ambitious (I dunno, for ONTAP 6.5 or something), this would be wild: flash firmware on a volume one disk at a time, and keep the volume online. While each disk is being flashed, use the parity disk to serve data, and keep track of writes somewhere to get the flashed disk back up to synch when the flash is done. It's too bad NetApp doesn't offer mirroring, since if you had mirrored sets this would be a real piece of cake. Just flash half a mirror while the other half served data. Online disk_fw_update would be a big help in five 9s environments. MD -----Original Message----- From: Krause, Oliver [mailto:OKrause@netapp.com] Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 5:56 AM To: 'Premanshu Jain'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 You can specify which disk to upgrade. Try disk_fw_update <diskname> This works while the system is running. Oliver > -----Original Message----- > From: Premanshu Jain [mailto:PrJain@shastanets.com] > Sent: Freitag, 5. Januar 2001 23:31 > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 > > > I have a 840 cluster. Whenever I add new disks, the cluster > starts throwing > 'doenrev disk firmware' error messages. NetApps suggests doing a > disk_fw_update on the disk and strictly says "NO need to Halt > a filer'. > Reality is totally different. The command specifically asks > you wether the > cluster partner is on Halt-OK prompt or not? > > The workaround I am doing, intitiate a takeover and do the > disk_fw_update. > However, this still needs to do a takeover/giveback and 2 minutes of > downtime...Adding/replacing bad disks is a regular activity... > > Any suggestions..? >

1 0

HSM
by SteveRoche＠datalink.com 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

Hello everyone! We are considering implementing an F840 with around 4TB into a mixed UNIX and Win2K environment. My question to this much respected community is can we implement an HSM solution like say Veritas Storage Replicator to extract stale files and put them out to tape with a Netapp? I have been told know but am hoping yes. Thanks in advance Steve Roche sroche(a)datalink.com

1 0

RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

SnapMirror wouldn't work for what I've suggested as it is read-only asynch. A read/write synchronous mirror (i.e. RAID 4+1) would be required for what I suggested. Also, to avoid disruption to the client systems, the CIFS share name or NFS export could not be changed during the fw_update, so it would have to be the same set of data and not a snapmirror. Thus even a synchronous snapmirror wouldn't work, unless you could make the snapmirror read/write, re-direct clients to the mirror on the fly without breaking the TCP session, and then reverse-synch once the disk_fw_update was done and put the clients back on the original disks. That'd be quite a trick! Think 99.999% uptime, no disruption to clients for *ANYTHING*. Or at least nothing as common and (relatively) trivial as a firmware update. I'd still say NetApp should look at ASUP logs and pre-flash replacement disks to the level appropriate for your ONTAP version before shipping them to you. That's probably a lot easier to do in the short term than my ambitious on-the-fly firmware update suggestion. :) Hey--here's a technical question. SCSI RAID systems allow you to update the firmware on one disk without disruption I/O to the other disks. Is this possible on an FCAL loop? Or is the whole idea technically infeasible due to limitations in FCAL? MD -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:21 PM To: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau; 'Krause, Oliver'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 > It's too bad NetApp doesn't offer mirroring, since if you had mirrored sets > this would be a real piece of cake. Just flash half a mirror while the > other half served data. Have you heard of something called SnapMirror? Bruce

1 0

RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

Just upgrading one disk still takes downtime for the whole system. The filer may be up, but if I can't access my data, effectively, it's down. "Downloading disk firmware can be disruptive to the system. It involves spinning down and then spinning up all affected disks, and suspending all disk I/O to all disks while that is happening. This may take up to 2 minutes to complete. This delay may cause clients to hang, and may cause CIFS clients to drop sessions." It should be noted that this notice can be misleading. It actually takes up to two minutes PER TYPE OF DISK to complete a disk_fw_update. So if you have two models of 18 GB drives and two models of 36 GB drives, if can take up to eight minutes to flash the firmware. Been there, done that. Was a little surprised the first time. :) Since replacement disks often ship with firmware different than the level currently being used on a filer, it would be nice if (a) NetApp checked autosupport logs and pre-flashed the firmware for you before sending you the disk (b) You could flash a single disk w/o disrupting all I/O for the entire filer. Especially if the disk is marked as a spare and therefore not part of any volume. If NetApp wanted to get *really* ambitious (I dunno, for ONTAP 6.5 or something), this would be wild: flash firmware on a volume one disk at a time, and keep the volume online. While each disk is being flashed, use the parity disk to serve data, and keep track of writes somewhere to get the flashed disk back up to synch when the flash is done. It's too bad NetApp doesn't offer mirroring, since if you had mirrored sets this would be a real piece of cake. Just flash half a mirror while the other half served data. Online disk_fw_update would be a big help in five 9s environments. MD -----Original Message----- From: Krause, Oliver [mailto:OKrause@netapp.com] Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 5:56 AM To: 'Premanshu Jain'; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: RE: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 You can specify which disk to upgrade. Try disk_fw_update <diskname> This works while the system is running. Oliver > -----Original Message----- > From: Premanshu Jain [mailto:PrJain@shastanets.com] > Sent: Freitag, 5. Januar 2001 23:31 > To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' > Subject: disk_fw_update issue with 840-5.3.7R2 > > > I have a 840 cluster. Whenever I add new disks, the cluster > starts throwing > 'doenrev disk firmware' error messages. NetApps suggests doing a > disk_fw_update on the disk and strictly says "NO need to Halt > a filer'. > Reality is totally different. The command specifically asks > you wether the > cluster partner is on Halt-OK prompt or not? > > The workaround I am doing, intitiate a takeover and do the > disk_fw_update. > However, this still needs to do a takeover/giveback and 2 minutes of > downtime...Adding/replacing bad disks is a regular activity... > > Any suggestions..? >

2 1

Preposterous date/time stamp
by Thomas.L.White＠chase.com 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

I seem to recall reading about this on the list - but could not find any related emails. Does anyone know of a bug and or fix for the date stamp on files/directories on the filer showing up as 20 to 30 years in the future ? The users are still being migrated to the filers from their old Novell or NT "homes" so this may even be due to "copy method" I'm not sure at this point We have not managed to replicate the error on "command". thanks tw

1 0

RE: 72 Gig disks
by Mohler, Jeff 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

Like anything else, the sizing you are looking at for HDs can affect performance depending on what your application and read/write requirements/habits are. Its inaccurate to state "performance problems" as a global issue as "performance" means different things to different customers. Consult with your salesperson and thier SE..they will be glad to help you make the best decision to match your specific environment, or follow this thread..im sure we'll get into a healthy debate on this. *grin* Cheers!

3 4

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