toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13523 discussions

Backup solution for 2x F840, 2xF630
by Oliver Ho 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

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: Lock files
by Mike Sphar 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

Hmmm...delete and recreate the share. Interesting idea. I just may try that. It may not be perfect, but I should be able to automate it at least. (The thing I've been trying to avoid doing was writing a script to identify open files and kill individual locks or sessions.) Thanks for the suggestion. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark [mailto:mark.muhlestein@netapp.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 8:18 PM To: 'Mike Sphar'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Lock files This has been a contentious issue because NT and UNIX locking semantics are so different. We have been considering a number of solutions to this, but in the meantime, one thing some people have done is to have users access data via a share that gets deleted when the build system needs to operate exclusively on a set of files. If you use the "-f" option to "cifs shares -delete" it will unceremoniously kick off all CIFS users of that share. Once the share has been recreated the users can get back into that area. It's not perfect, but it has been workable for some people. It is also possible to run scripts that retrieve information on open files, etc. but I don't know of anyone who has actually done that. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@remedy.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 7:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Lock files Changing ownership of the file has not had any effect in my experience (this is on NT in general, not just Filers). The denying of access based on an open lock is completely separate from and takes precedence over any ownership as far as I've been able to determine. And no, the Admin generally can't remove a file that has an open lock even if it opened the lock. Try deleting the executable for a process that is currently running and you will probably see what I mean. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 6:06 PM To: Mike Sphar; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Lock files ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Sphar" <mikey(a)Remedy.COM> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: RE: Lock files > Neither the UNIX root user nor the NT administrator can remove the files in > question when the locks occur. I believe it is a side-effect of the Filer > enforcing NT locks to UNIX clients. (I don't think Netapp is necessarily > doing anything wrong here. I believe this is the correct behavior in most > cases.) I very commonly encounter situations on NT systems where the > administrator cannot remove a file that is open, no matter who owns it. But under NT, can the admin chown (take ownership) of a file that is locked, and then remove it? Also, can the admin remove a file that it itself has locked? > Of course, even if root *could* remove those files as root/administrator, > I'd still like a way for the files owner to be able to remove them. I'd > rather not have to give my build engineers root/administrator access to my > filer. I agree. I believe that UNIX and NT need to respect each-other's permissions, but it should not alter absolute power.. Bruce

1 0

RE: Lock files
by Muhlestein, Mark 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

This has been a contentious issue because NT and UNIX locking semantics are so different. We have been considering a number of solutions to this, but in the meantime, one thing some people have done is to have users access data via a share that gets deleted when the build system needs to operate exclusively on a set of files. If you use the "-f" option to "cifs shares -delete" it will unceremoniously kick off all CIFS users of that share. Once the share has been recreated the users can get back into that area. It's not perfect, but it has been workable for some people. It is also possible to run scripts that retrieve information on open files, etc. but I don't know of anyone who has actually done that. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Mike Sphar [mailto:mikey@remedy.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 7:09 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Lock files Changing ownership of the file has not had any effect in my experience (this is on NT in general, not just Filers). The denying of access based on an open lock is completely separate from and takes precedence over any ownership as far as I've been able to determine. And no, the Admin generally can't remove a file that has an open lock even if it opened the lock. Try deleting the executable for a process that is currently running and you will probably see what I mean. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 6:06 PM To: Mike Sphar; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Lock files ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Sphar" <mikey(a)Remedy.COM> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: RE: Lock files > Neither the UNIX root user nor the NT administrator can remove the files in > question when the locks occur. I believe it is a side-effect of the Filer > enforcing NT locks to UNIX clients. (I don't think Netapp is necessarily > doing anything wrong here. I believe this is the correct behavior in most > cases.) I very commonly encounter situations on NT systems where the > administrator cannot remove a file that is open, no matter who owns it. But under NT, can the admin chown (take ownership) of a file that is locked, and then remove it? Also, can the admin remove a file that it itself has locked? > Of course, even if root *could* remove those files as root/administrator, > I'd still like a way for the files owner to be able to remove them. I'd > rather not have to give my build engineers root/administrator access to my > filer. I agree. I believe that UNIX and NT need to respect each-other's permissions, but it should not alter absolute power.. Bruce

1 0

RE: Lock files
by Mike Sphar 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

Changing ownership of the file has not had any effect in my experience (this is on NT in general, not just Filers). The denying of access based on an open lock is completely separate from and takes precedence over any ownership as far as I've been able to determine. And no, the Admin generally can't remove a file that has an open lock even if it opened the lock. Try deleting the executable for a process that is currently running and you will probably see what I mean. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 6:06 PM To: Mike Sphar; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Lock files ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Sphar" <mikey(a)Remedy.COM> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: RE: Lock files > Neither the UNIX root user nor the NT administrator can remove the files in > question when the locks occur. I believe it is a side-effect of the Filer > enforcing NT locks to UNIX clients. (I don't think Netapp is necessarily > doing anything wrong here. I believe this is the correct behavior in most > cases.) I very commonly encounter situations on NT systems where the > administrator cannot remove a file that is open, no matter who owns it. But under NT, can the admin chown (take ownership) of a file that is locked, and then remove it? Also, can the admin remove a file that it itself has locked? > Of course, even if root *could* remove those files as root/administrator, > I'd still like a way for the files owner to be able to remove them. I'd > rather not have to give my build engineers root/administrator access to my > filer. I agree. I believe that UNIX and NT need to respect each-other's permissions, but it should not alter absolute power.. Bruce

1 0

RE: Lock files
by Mike Sphar 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

Neither the UNIX root user nor the NT administrator can remove the files in question when the locks occur. I believe it is a side-effect of the Filer enforcing NT locks to UNIX clients. (I don't think Netapp is necessarily doing anything wrong here. I believe this is the correct behavior in most cases.) I very commonly encounter situations on NT systems where the administrator cannot remove a file that is open, no matter who owns it. Of course, even if root *could* remove those files as root/administrator, I'd still like a way for the files owner to be able to remove them. I'd rather not have to give my build engineers root/administrator access to my filer. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:43 PM To: Mike Sphar; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Lock files ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Sphar" <mikey(a)Remedy.COM> To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Lock files > I was about to ask a similar question actually. We keep running into > problems where our build group can't delete a directory because someone else > had opened one of the files in it, and then the build automation fails. Not > even root can remove those files until the offending session is found and > killed or the lock is removed. This I don't understand. Root should always be allowed to remove files even if they are locked. If the filer doesn't allow that, I consider it a bug (even if it's a design choice). Of course, NT's Administrator has different privelages. I suppose you could enforce that on the UNIX side and require root to first chown the files to root, and then delete them. But that would be an optional behavior. Bruce

2 1

RE: Lock files
by Mike Sphar 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

I was about to ask a similar question actually. We keep running into problems where our build group can't delete a directory because someone else had opened one of the files in it, and then the build automation fails. Not even root can remove those files until the offending session is found and killed or the lock is removed. Is there a way to selectively disable locking so that some directories/shares/qtrees/etc will allow open files to be deleted? -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: Shaw, Kevin [mailto:Kevin.Shaw@CAX.USA.XEROX.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 2:02 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Lock files I'm having problems moving files (using cpio or tar) with the lock bit set. Any ideas/help is appreciated. Thanks in advance. -Kevin

2 1

Lock files
by Shaw, Kevin 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

I'm having problems moving files (using cpio or tar) with the lock bit set. Any ideas/help is appreciated. Thanks in advance. -Kevin

2 1

RE: MRTG with netcache.
by Doherty, Niall 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

> The goop on now.netapp.com is old, and rather clunky. Yup. I completely agree ;-) > Anybody got any good Netcache MRTG stuff that sucks down all the good > stuff w/o firing up wget to grep out data? Not MRTG, but here are my config files for Cricket (which is sort-of-a-successor to MRTG). If you want to use this with Cricket you should create a subdirectory and dump in the Defaults file and the appropriate "nc" file. NetCache 5.0 has a LOT of info available via SNMP. I don't display *everything* in the "Targets" specification for NetCache-50 but if you read through the files you can see what else might be of interest... Even if you don't use Cricket these files should be of use if you want to use SNMP - the hard part of SNMP is not retrieving the stats, but interpreting and graphing them correctly... Have fun... If you've any questions let me know... Cheers, Niall -- Niall Doherty | Network Appliance Inc. | NetCache Technical Coordinator | 495 East Java Drive | Intercontinental Operations | Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA | mailto:ndoherty@netapp.com | http://www.netapp.com | Direct Line: +1 408 822 8554 | HQ Phone: +1 408 822 6000 | FAX(->email): +1 801 912 5212 | HQ FAX: +1 408 822 6001 |

1 0

MRTG with netcache.
by Jaye Mathisen 02 Dec '00

02 Dec '00

The goop on now.netapp.com is old, and rather clunky. Anybody got any good Netcache MRTG stuff that sucks down all the good stuff w/o firing up wget to grep out data? I'm mainly looking for the equivalent of the sysstat output, and the summary page in NetCache 5.0D6. Thanks in advance. If somebody sends me something, I'll be sure to summarize and repost the good stuff back to the list.

1 0

RE: SCSI on Filer 760 HVDS or LVDS
by Tom "Mad Dog" Yergeau 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

There is a tape drive compatibility matrix here http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/cert_matrices/tape_drives.shtm l which indicates that F700-series filers require HVD. As this article indicates http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=dfaf091a-9bbd-11d4-9 2f7-080020c8339b&resource=&number=19&isExternal=0 (link will be wrapped) you must use fast-wide differential SCSI drives and not single ended drives on an F700-series filer. The compatibility matrix indicates the F840 supports both FWD-HVD and LVD-SE, except for DLT7000 drives. MD -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Dickson [mailto:bdickson@cart.org] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 1:58 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: SCSI on Filer 760 HVDS or LVDS I have a 760 and need to know is the SCSI buss High or Low voltage differential, I just recieved a backup library that is HVDS Thanks Bryan Dickson, CTO Center for Advanced Research & Technology

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