toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

2 participants
13529 discussions

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Kelly Wyatt 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

I'm pretty sure that backing up over NFS won't get any NT ACLS that might be in the filesystem. That may or may not be an issue for you. There have been ONTAP/NetBackup integration issues. I've seen upgrades of ONTAP totally break backups and I've seen versions of ONTAP that cause unexplained downing of tape drives on just a handful of my filers (roughly 6 out of 14, different robots, so it is not hardware issue -- we use a cron job to up the drives regularly). Things have improved since we began using NetBackup for NDMP 2 1/2 years ago. I understand that VERITAS has a standard test suite they run against major releases of ONTAP. They don't check the minor releases as far as I know, nor the patch releases. We users tend to do that :-). Unfortunately, often we can't wait until NetBackup is qualified on a particular version of ONTAP. We are heavy users of the multiprotocol features of the filers and often require the latest version of ONTAP for bug fixes or features. We have a backup lab where we test things as thoroughly as we can... and still things slip by. But it is not all bad. VERITAS with NDMP seems to be pretty rock solid for backing up filers. We are happy with the throughput of our backups, etc. I'd do the same thing again. Kelly -- Kelly Wyatt, Kelly.Wyatt(a)SAS.com Senior Systems Programmer Strategic Recovery SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 http://www.sas.com SAS... The Power to Know -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

1 0

RE: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict
by Walsh, Warren (MN65) 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

This sounds a lot like bug 16355, which we ran into earlier this year. The filer incorrectly registers itself with WINS using a workstation(00), messenger (03), and server (20) that matches the domain name (1c). IE, there's the correct entries for a machine named FILER with 00, 03, and 20; then there's additional entries of DOMAIN with 00, 03, and 20. NetApp's support didn't have a solution, but someone on the list here did. NetApp support later confirmed that yes, it was bug number 16355, and the solution was fixed by upgrading to a newer version on OnTap. -warren Warren M. Walsh Honeywell Laboratories -----Original Message----- From: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:18 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict We'd been seeing a problem where a cifs testdc would yield the following results: filer> cifs testdc Using Established configuration Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" Registered names... FILER < 0> WINS FILER < 3> WINS FILER <20> WINS DOMAIN < 0> WINS Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive found PDC DC-001 Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.13...192.168.0.13 is alive found DC DC-001 at 192.168.0.10 Not able to communicate with DC 192.168.0.10 found DC DC-002 at 192.168.0.13 NetApp was perplexed, had me re-run CIFS setup, etc. to no avail. Today we rebooted our PDC because we noticed that the master browser registration was in conflict: NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table Name Type Status --------------------------------------------- PDC <00> UNIQUE Registered PDC <20> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <00> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1C> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1E> GROUP Registered PDC <03> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <1D> UNIQUE Conflict ..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1B> UNIQUE Registered After the PDC rebooted, the cifs testdc problem went away. I know I've corresponded with some folks from toasters who were having this cifs testdc problem. If you're having the problem, can you do an nbtstat -a on your PDC, and see if you see a <1D> entry in conflict? Thanks, Mad Dog For your enjoyment: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q163/4/09.asp

1 0

RE: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict
by bentele＠mtu-friedrichshafen.com 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

Hi, I've got the same problems after our wins/dns environment was upgraded to win2k. ... "Not able to communicate with DC ...." nbtstat -a 'PDC' shows all records registered ( even 1D ) since then my filers deny resolving each others hostnames by using dns/wins, a call is open at netapp since 27-nov. Thanks Mit freundlichen Grüßen Markus Bentele MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH * 07541-90-2654 * 07541-90-5510 * bentele(a)mtu-friedrichshafen.com -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau [mailto:MadDog@fool.com] Gesendet: Montag, 11. Dezember 2000 20:18 An: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Betreff: cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict We'd been seeing a problem where a cifs testdc would yield the following results: filer> cifs testdc Using Established configuration Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" Registered names... FILER < 0> WINS FILER < 3> WINS FILER <20> WINS DOMAIN < 0> WINS Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive found PDC DC-001 Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.13...192.168.0.13 is alive found DC DC-001 at 192.168.0.10 Not able to communicate with DC 192.168.0.10 found DC DC-002 at 192.168.0.13 NetApp was perplexed, had me re-run CIFS setup, etc. to no avail. Today we rebooted our PDC because we noticed that the master browser registration was in conflict: NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table Name Type Status --------------------------------------------- PDC <00> UNIQUE Registered PDC <20> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <00> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1C> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1E> GROUP Registered PDC <03> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <1D> UNIQUE Conflict ..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1B> UNIQUE Registered After the PDC rebooted, the cifs testdc problem went away. I know I've corresponded with some folks from toasters who were having this cifs testdc problem. If you're having the problem, can you do an nbtstat -a on your PDC, and see if you see a <1D> entry in conflict? Thanks, Mad Dog For your enjoyment: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q163/4/09.asp

1 0

RE: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ...
by Francett, Robert D (SAIC) 12 Dec '00

12 Dec '00

Shaun, We use Veritas Netbackup via NDMP and it has worked well. Therefore no worries impacting net with backups. Never used BudTool. Upgrades to DOT have never been a problem. NOW keeps a page which lists NB versions sanctioned with the various DOT releases. I double-check it when considering upgrade. Hope that helps, Bob Francett BP Exploration/Alaska -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:55 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Veritas & Filers, or: to NDMP or not to NDMP ... ... that is the question. I am switching from BudTool to Veritas Netbackup. It seems, if I understand things correctly, that I can either back up my filers over NFS, or I can use NDMP and back them up to a locally attached tape drive, or to another filer with a locally attached tape drive. NDMP seems the way to go, for performance and speed reasons. However, I stopped using NDMP with BudTool, because everytime I had to upgrade either BudTool or OnTap, I ran into compatability problems between the differing NDMP implimentations. What has been the experience of those of you who are using Veritas and have tried the above solutions? Which method do you suggest I use, and why? -ste -- Office: (908) 582-7629 Cell: (908) 672-6456 Pager: (888) 290-2057

1 0

netapp-top.pl
by Traitel, Eyal 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Hi ! Can the person who published the script in toasters contact me ? Can the author (Daniel Quinlan) contact me as well ? Thanks, 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Relying on automatic load on DLT7000 drive
by Chris Thompson 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Maybe it's a mistake having put myself on the weekly newbugs mailing list: examining the list always leads to alarm and despondency... :-) This week it's 29835. That describes a problem with cleaning tapes and issuing the SCSI LOAD command against a DLT7000, and has | Solution or Fix: | The filer will refrain from issuing the LOAD command to the DLT7000 | at all, since the device autoloads the tape. Available in 5.3.7R2, | 6.0.2 and 6.1. That sounds as if NetApp is about to remove a feature (accident?) which I think I have been relying on. We have a (Tandberg) DLT7000 drive with no stacker attached to an F740. It certainly "autoloads" when a tape is inserted. However, after an unload, the same tape can be reloaded without manual intervention by accessing it from the F740 - I presume that's the result of the LOAD command at issue. I have used this for adding incremental dumps at times when there's no human available to change tapes (e.g. weekends). Apart from that, there's a positive advantage in the idle state of the drive being the unloaded one. If the tape is loaded, a power outage will leave the tape directory marked invalid, and the tape controller will need to scan the whole tape for filemarks before it can do anything with it, which can take well over an hour. (Not that this has happened to us on the F740: it's based on experience with DLTs in other contexts.) 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.

2 1

Re: Re: Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas
by lkaptan＠pro-link.net 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Is there anybody who tested to backup one filer to another one using veritas ? Original Message: ----------------- From: Rune Bakken rb(a)nextra.com Date: 11 Dec 2000 17:23:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Qualstar AIT-2 and Veritas BrianH(a)dice.com writes: > I cannot comment on Veritas, I was unable to eval their product because they > do not support NDMP on anything but solaris. Uh? Then why is Veritas selling me NDMP for NetApp client? http://www.support.veritas.com/dsl/lists/nbu_os_ddProduct_NETBACKUPDC_prod1… Anyway I have a QualStar 4660 still in the box, waiting for me to find time to have it installed on my new mediaserver. I do plan to use fiber to connect my filer, mediaserver and library. My dealer has promised me that this will work ... >>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. System Administrator When they wake up in the morning, that's as Nextra, good as they're going to feel all day." a Telenor Company - Frank Sinatra ------------------------------------------------------------------- This message has been posted from Mail2Web http://www.mail2web.com/ Web Hosting for $9.95 per month! Visit: http://www.yourhosting.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: Relying on automatic load on DLT7000 drive
by Hu, Chang-Ping 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

There are a few rationales behind the change. 1. To provide a fix to allow proper handling of a cleaning tape by DLT tape libraries (Burt #29835.) 2. In the case of a stand-alone drive, to provide a consistent drive behavior across various tape drive types. AIT and Exabyte drives will physically eject a tape when an unload command is issued. This change will make the DLT drives respond in a similar way, even though it does not physically eject the tape. 3. The change will require a user to manually reload the tape to enable the DLT drive to read it. This prevents accidentally overwriting a tape user may otherwise think has been unloaded. Again, this is no different from the AIT and Exabyte drives. Also, the change should only affect stand-alone DLT drives and not DLT stackers. Once the stacker robotics unloads and loads a new tape into the drive, a LOAD command will be issued to put the drive in ready mode. In your particular case, to add incremental dumps, an alternative is to use nrst0a instead urst0a. If you don't really care about the previous data on the tape, you can even use rst0a. C.P. Hu FSR QA, Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 7:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Relying on automatic load on DLT7000 drive Maybe it's a mistake having put myself on the weekly newbugs mailing list: examining the list always leads to alarm and despondency... :-) This week it's 29835. That describes a problem with cleaning tapes and issuing the SCSI LOAD command against a DLT7000, and has | Solution or Fix: | The filer will refrain from issuing the LOAD command to the DLT7000 | at all, since the device autoloads the tape. Available in 5.3.7R2, | 6.0.2 and 6.1. That sounds as if NetApp is about to remove a feature (accident?) which I think I have been relying on. We have a (Tandberg) DLT7000 drive with no stacker attached to an F740. It certainly "autoloads" when a tape is inserted. However, after an unload, the same tape can be reloaded without manual intervention by accessing it from the F740 - I presume that's the result of the LOAD command at issue. I have used this for adding incremental dumps at times when there's no human available to change tapes (e.g. weekends). Apart from that, there's a positive advantage in the idle state of the drive being the unloaded one. If the tape is loaded, a power outage will leave the tape directory marked invalid, and the tape controller will need to scan the whole tape for filemarks before it can do anything with it, which can take well over an hour. (Not that this has happened to us on the F740: it's based on experience with DLTs in other contexts.) 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

cifs testdc problem and 1D registration conflict
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

We'd been seeing a problem where a cifs testdc would yield the following results: filer> cifs testdc Using Established configuration Current Mode of NBT is H Mode Netbios scope "" Registered names... FILER < 0> WINS FILER < 3> WINS FILER <20> WINS DOMAIN < 0> WINS Testing Primary Domain Controller found 1 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive found PDC DC-001 Testing all Domain Controllers found 3 addresses trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.10...192.168.0.10 is alive trying 192.168.0.13...192.168.0.13 is alive found DC DC-001 at 192.168.0.10 Not able to communicate with DC 192.168.0.10 found DC DC-002 at 192.168.0.13 NetApp was perplexed, had me re-run CIFS setup, etc. to no avail. Today we rebooted our PDC because we noticed that the master browser registration was in conflict: NetBIOS Remote Machine Name Table Name Type Status --------------------------------------------- PDC <00> UNIQUE Registered PDC <20> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <00> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1C> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1E> GROUP Registered PDC <03> UNIQUE Registered DOMAIN <1D> UNIQUE Conflict ..__MSBROWSE__.<01> GROUP Registered DOMAIN <1B> UNIQUE Registered After the PDC rebooted, the cifs testdc problem went away. I know I've corresponded with some folks from toasters who were having this cifs testdc problem. If you're having the problem, can you do an nbtstat -a on your PDC, and see if you see a <1D> entry in conflict? Thanks, Mad Dog For your enjoyment: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q163/4/09.asp

1 0

RE: Backup software recommendation?
by Benn, Paul 11 Dec '00

11 Dec '00

Roger, The mainstream NT backup apps all work pretty well with filers. Backing up over CIFS is slower than using an NDMP enabled application, though. Take a look at our white paper on this subject. Admittedly it's based on some older hardware and software versions but it should still provide you enough information to get your NT based solution implemented. http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3052.html Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: rbonine(a)millermartin.com [mailto:rbonine@millermartin.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:47 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Backup software recommendation? We are in the process of installing an F720 to be used in an all-NT server environment. Can anyone recommend a good backup platform? We're planning to use an ADIC FastStor library connected to one of our NT boxes. Data size will be roughly 150 Gb. Will Backup Exec support this configuration? Their latest version, 8.5, mentions "NAS support", but doesn't go into any details. Any suggestions will be appreciated... ---------------------------------------- Roger Bonine IT Manager, System Support Miller & Martin LLP ---------------------------------------- *************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *************************** The information contained in this e-mail message is legally privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail by an unauthorized recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments. Please also advise us immediately if you or your employer does not consent to receipt of Internet e-mail for confidential messages of this kind. **************************************************************************** ***

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