toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

ESTALE
by Edward Hibbert 31 Dec '00

31 Dec '00

We're using HP machines running HP 11 against a NetApp, using NFS. We are occasionally seeing ESTALE errors on file I/O operations. This may be a problem in the application, but I'd welcome any information any of you have on just what ESTALE means. I've seen it described as occurring when an NFS client uses an invalid file handle, but I've also seen reference to it occurring when machines are rebooted. So, my rather vague question is: what do you all know about ESTALE? Edward Hibbert Internet Applications Group Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 131 662 1212 Fax: +44 131 662 1345 Email: eh(a)dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com

2 1

RE: Relying on automatic load on DLT7000 drive
by Chris Thompson 29 Dec '00

29 Dec '00

Apologies for resurrecting a 2.5-week old thread, but I've realised I ought to wrap up a few things before the [real:-)] millennium... Chang-Ping Hu <chang-ping.hu(a)netapp.com> wrote: 1> 1> There are a few rationales behind the change. 1> 1> 1. To provide a fix to allow proper handling of a cleaning tape by DLT tape 1> libraries (Burt #29835.) 1> 1> 2. In the case of a stand-alone drive, to provide a consistent drive 1> behavior across various tape drive types. AIT and Exabyte drives will 1> physically eject a tape when an unload command is issued. This change will 1> make the DLT drives respond in a similar way, even though it does not 1> physically eject the tape. 1> 1> 3. The change will require a user to manually reload the tape to enable the 1> DLT drive to read it. This prevents accidentally overwriting a tape user 1> may otherwise think has been unloaded. Again, this is no different from the 1> AIT and Exabyte drives. I think I'm convinced by the compatibility (2) and safety (3) arguments that the state before 5.3.7R2 was wrong. 1> In your particular case, to add incremental dumps, an alternative is to use 1> nrst0a instead urst0a. If you don't really care about the previous data 1> on the tape, you can even use rst0a. and also Amol Chitre <Amol.Chitre(a)netapp.com> wrote 2> 2> In the absence of a stacker, why are you using a urst0a? It seems to me that 2> you are overwriting during the incremental dumps. In that case, you can use 2> a rst0a and the tape will not be unloaded. On the other hand, if you dont 2> want to overwrite, you can use nrst0a. In case you want to continue with 2> urst0a, you might have to do a manual unload and reload everytime. I ought to have made this clearer. I use nrst0a exclusively for the dumps themselves, and pack several of them onto a single tape (these are small incremental dumps). There's an outer-level management script that checks labels, writes packing lists, and positions the tape, all via the na_rmt(8) interface [q.v.]. Dumps on successive days do not overwrite each other: they get added on the end of the tape. At the moment, the management script ends up unloading the tape ("I6\n1\n" to na_rmt). Just opening the tape again the next day reloads it if the same tape is still sitting in the drive. This is convenient at times without operator cover. Obviously I can change this to not unload the tape, but that has some disadvantages, including the greater exposure to loss of the filemark directory on a power failure that I mentioned before. I can live with it, though! Solaris' rmt implementation supports some larger-numbered "I" (ioctl) operations beyond 6, including 14 (MTLOAD). A nice solution for me would be to have ONTAP's rmt support this as well: an explicit load request doesn't fall into the overwrite-the-tape-by-accident scenario. However, I suppose that these extensions are highly unstandardised, and it might be asking rather a lot of NetApp to support them. 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

Re: Block checksums and Zoned checksums
by sthaug＠nethelp.no 29 Dec '00

29 Dec '00

> 21 years ago - and boy, does it seem *weird* to write that - my first > programming experience was with a very funky old machine called the PERQ. Yup, I remember the PERQ. Some of them found their way to Norway too :-) > Musing somewhat related to toasters: Like GigE pushing against the limits > of a 1500 byte MTU, isn't it about time we start moving to 1K or larger > block sizes on our SCSI drives? In the age of FibreChannel and Ultra160, > shuffling all those wee blocks about seems silly, given that filesystems > are using 1K, 2K, 4K and larger logical block sizes. You may want to check out the Usenet newsgroup comp.arch, which has a rather interesting discussion about just that. Look for the thread with subject line Re: 4M pages are a bad idea (was Re: AMD 64bit Hammer CPU and VM) Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no

1 0

Block checksums and Zoned checksums
by Chris Thompson 29 Dec '00

29 Dec '00

I've been reading the 6.0.1R1 "Start Here" document (for advance planning: we're not about to move to it) and especially the "New features in 6.0.1" section. I wonder whether someone can explain how "block checksum" disks (and volumes) differ from "zoned checksum" ones, at a slightly more technical level than "block checksum disks are the ones with yellow front bezel ID labels and the orange system requirements labels on the side"? :) 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.

3 3

EMC
by chris＠webtop.com 28 Dec '00

28 Dec '00

Looks like EMC are trawling the mailing list for sales leads. People of a sensitive disposition may want to hide their contact details when posting if they wish to avoid being contacted. -- Chris Good WebTop.com http://www.webtop.com Tel: +44 (0) 1223 715000 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 715001

2 1

cifs and win nt res kit SU cmd
by neil lehrer 27 Dec '00

27 Dec '00

i take it all back, NT SU and cifs on my filers is working correctly. fixed one problem corrected multiple symptoms. -- regards

1 0

RE: snapmirror quarry...
by Berry, Grant 27 Dec '00

27 Dec '00

Hi Brian and all. Snapmirror does xfer the source volume's snapshots over to the target volume, so that space has to be considered as well. In general you need as much or more space available on the snapmirror target. Have a look at section 4. in this white paper, it explains it well: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3043.html Another good doc on snapmirror is here: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/TR3073.shtml Please keep in mind that these docs are due for updating when it come to performance details when considering snap create and blockmap xfer times and their (huge) improvements in ONTAP 6.x. Regards, Grant -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 1:54 PM To: Lance R. Bailey Cc: 'Traitel Eyal'; toasters Subject: Re: snapmirror quarry... On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Lance R. Bailey wrote: > > snap mirror is a front to vol copy. think of vol copy as "dd" ie: > block level. Does this include or exclude snap reserve space? Vol copy does not require that you duplicate snapshots of a volume, so I assume SnapMirror is the same? -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Solaris persistently trying to write to a snapshot
by Chris Thompson 26 Dec '00

26 Dec '00

I wonder whether anyone else has seen the following effect? I made a casual reference to the problem back in May, but it's just jumped up and bit us rather hard. [Actually, it was before Christmas, but I didn't get round to writing it up then!] NFS server: F740 running ONTAP 5.3.7R1 NFS client: UltraSPARC (E220R) running Solaris 8 (well patched) [but the problem has been around since 5.3.5 & Solaris 2.6, at least: probably much longer] In some circumstances, the Solaris kernel can acquire the notion that it has pending NFS writes (apparently in the "buffer cache") to be performed on a file in a snapshot. When such a write is rejected by the filer with EROFS, Solaris logs the error... and tries it again after 30 seconds. And again. And again ... On one recent occurrence of this, as the result of a genuine user "error", the messages came so thick and fast that we had to reboot the client machine. The following, by contrast, was a controlled experiment! Test file: $ ls -li test/test 3715488 -rw-r--r-- 1 cet1 cet1 21167 Dec 23 15:50 test/test A snapshot was taken at 16:00. Then the command echo x >>test/.snapshot/hourly.0/test which one might reasonably expect to fail, completed quietly. But then the kernel messages started: Dec 23 18:00:43 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 808668 kern.notice] NFS write error on host puppis-intracus: Read-only file system. Dec 23 18:00:43 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 702911 kern.notice] (file handle: e1b43900 13b1f03 20000b00 38b1a0 a8268f00 fb380000 40000000 c7741500) Dec 23 18:00:43 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 808668 kern.notice] NFS write error on host puppis-intracus: Read-only file system. Dec 23 18:00:43 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 702911 kern.notice] (file handle: e1b43900 13b1f03 20000b00 38b1a0 a8268f00 fb380000 40000000 c7741500) Dec 23 18:01:07 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 808668 kern.notice] NFS write error on host puppis-intracus: Read-only file system. Dec 23 18:01:07 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 702911 kern.notice] (file handle: e1b43900 13b1f03 20000b00 38b1a0 a8268f00 fb380000 40000000 c7741500) Dec 23 18:01:37 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 808668 kern.notice] NFS write error on host puppis-intracus: Read-only file system. Dec 23 18:01:37 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 702911 kern.notice] (file handle: e1b43900 13b1f03 20000b00 38b1a0 a8268f00 fb380000 40000000 c7741500) ... continuing apparently indefinitely. I was quite expecting to have to reboot this client machine as well, but coming back after Christmas I find they eventually terminated: ... Dec 25 15:59:37 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 808668 kern.notice] NFS write error on host puppis-intracus: Read-only file system. Dec 25 15:59:37 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 702911 kern.notice] (file handle: e1b43900 13b1f03 20000b00 38b1a0 a8268f00 fb380000 40000000 c7741500) Dec 25 16:00:07 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 626546 kern.notice] NFS write error on host puppis-intracus: Stale NFS file handle. Dec 25 16:00:07 draco.cus.cam.ac.uk nfs: [ID 702911 kern.notice] (file handle: e1b43900 13b1f03 20000b00 38b1a0 a8268f00 fb380000 40000000 c7741500) The snapshot had been deleted, and the change from an EROFS to an ESTALE seems to have finally persuaded the Solaris kernel to stop retrying! [The file handle contents agree perfectly with the expected value for the snapshot of test/test, by the way, based on the description that Guy Harris gave last May.] I suppose this has to be seen primarily as a Solaris problem, but I wonder what attributes of the NetApp filer are confusing it. Q1. Why doesn't the open for writing of "test/.snapshot/hourly.0/test" fail? Is Solaris being confused by parts of a single NFS filing system being read-only, but not all of it? Or by the duplicate inode numbers of "test/test" (which would certainly have been cached) and "test/.snapshot/hourly.0/test"? Q2. Why does Solaris go on trying the write for so long? [And why keep on logging it so persistently? :-( ] I'll have to open a call with Sun about this in the new year, and would like to understand the problem better myself by then. 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

RE: Bouncing autosupport?
by Brar, Suman 24 Dec '00

24 Dec '00

Our production systems is functioning properly and all autosupports are being processed. These bounces were caused by one of our development systems for stress testing the capabilities of email system for autosupport. The developer forgot to throttle the outgoing bounces. Sorry for the inconvenience. I am responsible for the Autosupport program and welcome your feedback. Regards Suman Brar Program Manager Autosupport 408-822-3492 > -----Original Message----- > From: Tuc [mailto:ttsg@ttsg.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 6:18 AM > To: chris(a)webtop.com > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: Bouncing autosupport? > > > > > > In article <200012240531.AAA01495(a)heimdall.ttsg.com>, Tuc wrote: > > > Anyone just rudely woken by : > > > > Oh yes [Grumbles at people who break their mail systems] > > > I normally don't get upset when people break their mail systems. > However, this time, I'm upset for 2 reasons : > > 1) What if my machine needed to log an autosupport > problem that it > threw a disk, or something else. > 2) I don't like getting woken up at : > > 00:18:04 > 00:26:33 > 02:09:01 > 02:36:28 > 04:17:12 > 04:17:30 > 04:18:01 > 04:18:02 > 05:35:06 > and then finally the one at > 05:35:07 > > which only set off 1 monitoring device, not the > other. So > I had to get up and work for a 1/2 hour to get it running. > Its bad enough > when its my own stuff that has a problem keeping me awake... > BUT A VENDOR! > > Tuc/TTSG >

2 1

Bouncing autosupport?
by Tuc 24 Dec '00

24 Dec '00

Hi, Anyone just rudely woken by : >The original message was received at Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:00:05 -0800 (PST) >from mx02.dmz.netapp.com [10.254.252.22] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >asupprodtest > (reason: service unavailable) > (expanded from: autosupport-private@herra) >asuparch > (reason: service unavailable) > (expanded from: autosupport-private@herra) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >mail.local: unknown name: >554 5.0.0 asupprodtest,asuparch... Service unavailable When the autosupport emails bounced...? Tuc/TTSG

3 3

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