toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

NTFS auditing?
by Brian Tao 07 Dec '00

07 Dec '00

Has anyone heard of "NTFS write auditing"? A group within our company would like that enabled for files in a certain directory so they can track who is modifying files. Is this a feature of NTFS itself, or is this achievable over CIFS to a filer? I'm asking this in the context of a Netapp serving up the data, of course. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

1 0

Chicago Area Network Appliance
by Knight, Jason 06 Dec '00

06 Dec '00

I am interested in starting a Netapp Users Group in the Chicago Area, I know there are a lot of customers in the suburbs and downtown. I want to gauge the interest before reserving a conference room or making any grand plans. I would like to arrange the meetings close to the majority depending on where the interest is heaviest (assuming enough interest, of course). Please let me know if you are interested and where in ChicagoLand you are located by responding to jasonk(a)wfg.com <mailto:jasonk@wfg.com> . The toasters will probably appreciate NOT being copied on the responses. Thanks, Jason Knight MSCE, Network Appliance CA

1 0

Strange problem...
by mitch＠netline.com 06 Dec '00

06 Dec '00

We just ran across a strange happening on our F760 filer. One of our folks did a "du -s" on an RCS directory to see how much space it was using: => du -s RCS du: RCS/ParseNVP.pm,v: Value too large for defined data type And got a strange error. In fact, pretty much anything that would do a stat(2) call on this file in this directory would generate the same error message. There were no errors logged on the filer and all weekly messages seem to indicate that all is well, but it still puzzles me. I ran off for the requisite caffine boost and came back and am now unable to reproduce the problem. I asked the user if they perhaps did something such as recreating the RCS directory from another source... they hadn't. The file which was complained about is a mere 3422 bytes, and all timestamps indicate that the file has not changed recently. Has anybody else seen this problem or have any ideas on how/why this may have occurred? For what it's worth, the NFS client accessing the files is running Solaris 5.7. I unfortunately didn't pop over to one of my BSD boxes before the problem worked itself out. ~mitch

5 5

RE: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630
by Premanshu Jain 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Hello everybody, I am scheduled to get one P-3000 shortly. If you wish to see my evaluation results, you may wait.. prem -----Original Message----- From: Collie, Michael [mailto:Michael.Collie@netapp.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:40 PM To: 'Manny Kaiser'; 'Oliver Ho'; 'PrJain(a)shastanets.com' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 Hello, Manny's response addressed some key questions that an administrator must answer when designing a backup solution. Further, one of the benefits of FC is that it provides backup access to storage that is not directly attached to the source data. Therefore, the question of performance on the F630 should not be the only consideration when making you decision. I do not entirely agree with Prem on the recommended approach for 'keeping things simple'. In fact direct attached SCSI can be more expensive and more complicated to manage. ATL is scheduled to ship a P3000 library this month that supports NDMP. This library supports GbE interface for each of its 16 DLT drives. Each DLT drive within the library is independent (own IP address & NDMP server) which almost eliminates the possibility of a complete library disaster. GbE is a proven technology that is considered mature. My recommendation is to centralize you backup using a Library with enough capacity for future scaling. I do not have enough information on your total infrastructure, i.e. FC, SCSI, Ethernet to make a recommendation on what interface this library should use. This information is necessary to calculate you total cost of ownership for a selected solution. Regards, Michael. -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:42 PM To: 'Oliver Ho' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 Hi, I would go on and comment, that it is good practice to distant your filers from your backup system, thus a fibre solution is preferred. Today management overhead of one large or several small libraries is not too big when using Veritas, thus I don't think this should be a major consideration. An additional consideration is making sure that the fibre at both ends are compatible. I definitely agree that with snapshots, the biggest concern of a backup system is disaster recovery, thus recovery time is an essential consideration - how long can your business be down until you recover a volume, a filer, or all your filers. The number of drives, the speed that they can actually restore data and of course your volume sizes are key factors in determining a backup system. Manny "Traitel, Eyal" wrote: > Personally, I'd go for the large library because of the price, easier > management for you, better scalability and more features probably... > You will have more flexibility as well... > > On number of drives - consider restore times as well... > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Ho [mailto:oliver@interq.or.jp] > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 10:22 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 > > Dear all, > > I have been given a task of designing a Netapps backup solution for my > network. > > We have > 2x F840 > 2x F630 > and various unix servers. > > Approx 1TB of data for the netapps. > > Various Vendors have informed me that the F630 are too slow for > FibreChannel. > > Solution 1 > One VERY HUGE Library with 2x FC for F840 and 2x SCSI for F630 card > mixture for the netapps > 4 Tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > > Solution 2 > Library with 2x FC for F840, two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > Library with 2x SCSI for F630, two tape drives > > Solution 3 > Three small library with SCSI for each F630 > One Library with 2x FC with two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s. > > The funny thing is Solution 1 is the cheapest, then 2,3. I guess its > because it mean more hardware. > > Can someone give me some pointers. These are all very expensive solutions. > I have heard that some ppl have used Gigabit ethernet and dumped via NDMP. > > We are thinking of using Veritas Netbackup for backups. > I have heard that you can get some kind of SCSI->FC conversion, so I can > connect to whatever FC connected library I may have. > > What would you do in my case? > > TIA > > Regards > Oliver Ho.

1 0

RE: Setting up FTP in NT40 environment
by Benn, Paul 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Hello Paul, Using NT4 and IIS4, you can use a filer on the back end by way of a UNC path but you'll need to configure it for anonymous access. If you want authenticated access, you can do this with IIS5/Win2K and Data ONTAP 5.3.7. The instructions (actually an update to our existing white paper on IIS) aren't yet posted on the web. They should be on the web soon, however. Check this page in a week or so to see the updated information: http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3078.html <http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3078.html> Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:PMAGLINGER@scvl.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:43 AM To: 'NetApps list server' Subject: Setting up FTP in NT40 environment We have a F740 running 5.3.6R2 in a WindowsNT environment. We are wanting to FTP to the filer from NT without setting up UIDs and GIDs (basically without anything to do with UNIX). Anyone have any experience with this? Have a prosperous and profitable day! _____ Paul Maglinger, A+, CA, CET, MCP PC Specialist Shoe Carnival Inc. (812)867-4674 pmaglinger(a)scvl.com <mailto:pmaglinger@scvl.com> _____

1 0

Setting up FTP in NT40 environment
by Maglinger, Paul 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

We have a F740 running 5.3.6R2 in a WindowsNT environment. We are wanting to FTP to the filer from NT without setting up UIDs and GIDs (basically without anything to do with UNIX). Anyone have any experience with this? Have a prosperous and profitable day! _____ Paul Maglinger, A+, CA, CET, MCP PC Specialist Shoe Carnival Inc. (812)867-4674 pmaglinger(a)scvl.com <mailto:pmaglinger@scvl.com> _____

1 0

FS: F630, F720, F740 and F760's with 9gb, 18gb, 36gb shelf options
by ScottUCE＠aol.com 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Used Netapp F630 and F7XX systems are available with 9gb, 18gb and 36gb disk shelf options. Please contact us if you have any interest. Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, MN 55436 (952) 935-7282 (952) 935-5056 - FAX www.unioncomputer.com

1 0

RE: Strange problem...
by Traitel, Eyal 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Me and CC-ed Mati had it some time ago... HP/UX just read it with no problems at all. It seems some bug with Solaris I think... We never insetigad it more than just deleting the files from the HP/UX machine... 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lamb [mailto:skeezics@measurecast.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:46 AM To: mitch(a)netline.com Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Strange problem... [...] > du: RCS/ParseNVP.pm,v: Value too large for defined data type [snip] > > Has anybody else seen this problem or have any ideas on how/why this > may have occurred? Yup. I called this in as a bug report about four or five months ago. I could probably dig up the case #, but I think it's closed... This filer that first displayed this problem is running both CIFS and NFS, and I thought (at first) that it might be a bug related to using a "mixed" security style. But the problem appeared even on volumes that were not - nor had they ever been - anything but Unix-style security, nor even accessed once by a CIFS client. The odd thing is, when those files would pop up I could go in and delete them via CIFS... > For what it's worth, the NFS client accessing the files is running > Solaris 5.7. I unfortunately didn't pop over to one of my BSD boxes > before the problem worked itself out. I first encountered this using RCS on Solaris 7 as well (both SPARC & x86). I figured it might be some obscure bug related to file locking and the NFS lock manager, but then someone reported that a _core file_ was displaying the same oddball symptoms... The workaround (if you have CIFS licensed) is to try deleting the file via CIFS. If that doesn't work, try again via NFS - you may find that just as mysteriously as it appeared, the error will then go away and you'll be able to delete (or access) the file. Tickling it via CIFS seems to get it "unstuck." Very odd. And, I know, not very scientific. ;-) I suppose I should have shut down the box and wack'ed it upside its WAFL, just to see if there really is some insidious directory corruption waiting to bite me on the backside at some inopportune time. But I don't really have the luxury of an extended downtime, and since it appears there's a crude workaround, I haven't (to my deep shame :-) re-opened the case and pestered for a fix... -- Chris -- Chris Lamb, Unix Guy MeasureCast, Inc. 503-241-1469 x247 <skeezics(a)measurecast.com>

1 0

RE: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630
by Collie, Michael 05 Dec '00

05 Dec '00

Hello, Manny's response addressed some key questions that an administrator must answer when designing a backup solution. Further, one of the benefits of FC is that it provides backup access to storage that is not directly attached to the source data. Therefore, the question of performance on the F630 should not be the only consideration when making you decision. I do not entirely agree with Prem on the recommended approach for 'keeping things simple'. In fact direct attached SCSI can be more expensive and more complicated to manage. ATL is scheduled to ship a P3000 library this month that supports NDMP. This library supports GbE interface for each of its 16 DLT drives. Each DLT drive within the library is independent (own IP address & NDMP server) which almost eliminates the possibility of a complete library disaster. GbE is a proven technology that is considered mature. My recommendation is to centralize you backup using a Library with enough capacity for future scaling. I do not have enough information on your total infrastructure, i.e. FC, SCSI, Ethernet to make a recommendation on what interface this library should use. This information is necessary to calculate you total cost of ownership for a selected solution. Regards, Michael. -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:42 PM To: 'Oliver Ho' Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 Hi, I would go on and comment, that it is good practice to distant your filers from your backup system, thus a fibre solution is preferred. Today management overhead of one large or several small libraries is not too big when using Veritas, thus I don't think this should be a major consideration. An additional consideration is making sure that the fibre at both ends are compatible. I definitely agree that with snapshots, the biggest concern of a backup system is disaster recovery, thus recovery time is an essential consideration - how long can your business be down until you recover a volume, a filer, or all your filers. The number of drives, the speed that they can actually restore data and of course your volume sizes are key factors in determining a backup system. Manny "Traitel, Eyal" wrote: > Personally, I'd go for the large library because of the price, easier > management for you, better scalability and more features probably... > You will have more flexibility as well... > > On number of drives - consider restore times as well... > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Ho [mailto:oliver@interq.or.jp] > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 10:22 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 > > Dear all, > > I have been given a task of designing a Netapps backup solution for my > network. > > We have > 2x F840 > 2x F630 > and various unix servers. > > Approx 1TB of data for the netapps. > > Various Vendors have informed me that the F630 are too slow for > FibreChannel. > > Solution 1 > One VERY HUGE Library with 2x FC for F840 and 2x SCSI for F630 card > mixture for the netapps > 4 Tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > > Solution 2 > Library with 2x FC for F840, two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s > Library with 2x SCSI for F630, two tape drives > > Solution 3 > Three small library with SCSI for each F630 > One Library with 2x FC with two tape drives > FC Switch for F840s. > > The funny thing is Solution 1 is the cheapest, then 2,3. I guess its > because it mean more hardware. > > Can someone give me some pointers. These are all very expensive solutions. > I have heard that some ppl have used Gigabit ethernet and dumped via NDMP. > > We are thinking of using Veritas Netbackup for backups. > I have heard that you can get some kind of SCSI->FC conversion, so I can > connect to whatever FC connected library I may have. > > What would you do in my case? > > TIA > > Regards > Oliver Ho.

1 0

RE: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630
by Traitel, Eyal 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

Personally, I'd go for the large library because of the price, easier management for you, better scalability and more features probably... You will have more flexibility as well... On number of drives - consider restore times as well... 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Oliver Ho [mailto:oliver@interq.or.jp] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 10:22 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630 Dear all, I have been given a task of designing a Netapps backup solution for my network. We have 2x F840 2x F630 and various unix servers. Approx 1TB of data for the netapps. Various Vendors have informed me that the F630 are too slow for FibreChannel. Solution 1 One VERY HUGE Library with 2x FC for F840 and 2x SCSI for F630 card mixture for the netapps 4 Tape drives FC Switch for F840s Solution 2 Library with 2x FC for F840, two tape drives FC Switch for F840s Library with 2x SCSI for F630, two tape drives Solution 3 Three small library with SCSI for each F630 One Library with 2x FC with two tape drives FC Switch for F840s. The funny thing is Solution 1 is the cheapest, then 2,3. I guess its because it mean more hardware. Can someone give me some pointers. These are all very expensive solutions. I have heard that some ppl have used Gigabit ethernet and dumped via NDMP. We are thinking of using Veritas Netbackup for backups. I have heard that you can get some kind of SCSI->FC conversion, so I can connect to whatever FC connected library I may have. What would you do in my case? TIA Regards Oliver Ho.

2 1

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