toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: Exchange 2k
by Mohler, Jeff 04 Nov '00

04 Nov '00

Is news so important to you that you would put it on a filer? That's one thing I stick to JBOD... price out two terabytes of usable storage on 50GB or 72GB drives in decent enclosures over U2SCSI or FibreChannel, and compare it to an F760 with the same amount of space. If you're concerned with performance of millions of small files, switch to a different storage model... it will almost certainly be cheaper than a big Netapp. -- Or switch to a more efficient method of running news (IE: Highwind).

2 1

RE: Exchange 2k
by rdobbins＠netmore.net 04 Nov '00

04 Nov '00

For both performance and supportability reasons, it is extremely inadvisable to put Exchange mailboxes/private stores/public stores on anything other than a filesystem which is directly-connected to the NT server in question. People do all sorts of odd things with NetApps just because they can - and don't get me wrong, I love my F740 - but this is just plain crazy. For your own peace of mind, don't do it. ----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)netmore.net> // 818.535.5024 voice -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Carr [mailto:jcarr@caseshare.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 3:22 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Exchange 2k We are in process of deploying Exchange 2k to our clients, but no one has been able to answer the question of weather or not we could store Exchange 2k mailboxes on our toaster (NetApp 720) and be Microsoft compliant. We are currently using our toaster to store general data i.e. pdf's doc's etc. I am sure that the toaster will be able to store the data, but the question is restoring data in the event of deleted mail boxes etc. Microsoft has not said anything about this type configuration on a Exchange 2k box. I know lots of people who are using their toasters to store Exchange 5.5 mail boxes but none using 2k as of yet. Has anyone tried this and what success/failure has any one encountered. I would like this work on the NetApp and not have to deploy and develop another storage solution, because in my mind there is nothing else out there that can beat a NetApp in availability and durability. Thanks, Jamie Carr

3 2

RE: Exchange 2k
by Mohler, Anissa 04 Nov '00

04 Nov '00

:As far as using it for Exchange, *I* would, but that's me. :Generally, Microsoft and NFS don't mix well, even though :they give lots of lip service to it. Martin, To my knowledge MS and NFS don't mix well... but have you heard that NetApp Filers have been directly supporting SMB (or CIFS) protocol for years now. You don't have to use NFS to put Exchange or any other data on the filer. We use CIFS, which Microsoft also uses for NT networking. So you use the clients software and protocols native to Windows Platform machines. You simply license CIFS, add the filer to an NT4 or Windows 2000 domain (or run the filer in 'workgroup mode') and your clients see the filer 'just like' an NT4 member server. ... ... but that is the subject of another thread that I really don't want to start right now *grin* Its the weekend after all! Anissa

1 0

RE: Exchange 2k
by Mohler, Anissa 04 Nov '00

04 Nov '00

Actually people are successfully running MS Exchange 5.5 on filers right now. No, Microsoft does not officially support Exchange on NAS (though Microsoft DOES support SQL 7 on Filers). So we have worked out additional agreements with IBM to support Exchange issues when the databases are on the filer. Some IT groups are not allowed, by company policy, to do anything that is not officially supported by their vendors. For those it is too bad. Others get the benefits of the filer and SnapManager for Exchange. Of course the decision is yours - or your CIO's, managers, etc. Check out the following white papers, see what you think. If you have any questions please feel free to ask... Microsoft Exchange and NetApp Filers : An Overview http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3067.html Technical Installation and Integration Supplement http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3054.html Recommendations for Deployment http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3074.html These Press Releases are also relevant : NetApp Unveils First Online Backup and Rapid Data Recovery Solution for MS Exchange http://www.netapp.com/news/press/news_rel_20000207.html NetApp Taps IBM for Microsoft Exchange Support Services http://www.netapp.com/news/press/news_rel_20000207a.html As far as Exchange 2000 on the filer, so far as I know, MS does not support that either. I know of one customer that was setting it up on the filer . He didn't call back with any problems so chances are its running smoothly. (I do tech support so I only hear from customers that have questions *grin*) On a side note, the customers I talk to that have contacted Microsoft about Exchange issues with their databases on the filer have not been 'hung up on' so to speak. BTW. If you want to talk to an Exchange Admin who LOVES Exchange on the filer let me know privately. I will not post his name or number here, but he is usually willing to talk to people about it. [of course this is only personal experience as I do not speak for MS or NetApp] Anissa :-----Original Message----- :From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan@world.std.com] :Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:52 PM :To: rdobbins(a)netmore.net :Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: Re: Exchange 2k : : :> :> :> For both performance and supportability reasons, it is :extremely inadvisable to put Exchange mailboxes/private stores/public stores on :anything other than a filesystem which is directly-connected to the NT :server in question. :> :> People do all sorts of odd things with NetApps just because :they can - and don't get me wrong, I love my F740 - but this is just plain :crazy. For your own peace of mind, don't do it.

1 0

Exchange 2k
by Jamie Carr 04 Nov '00

04 Nov '00

We are in process of deploying Exchange 2k to our clients, but no one has been able to answer the question of weather or not we could store Exchange 2k mailboxes on our toaster (NetApp 720) and be Microsoft compliant. We are currently using our toaster to store general data i.e. pdf's doc's etc. I am sure that the toaster will be able to store the data, but the question is restoring data in the event of deleted mail boxes etc. Microsoft has not said anything about this type configuration on a Exchange 2k box. I know lots of people who are using their toasters to store Exchange 5.5 mail boxes but none using 2k as of yet. Has anyone tried this and what success/failure has any one encountered. I would like this work on the NetApp and not have to deploy and develop another storage solution, because in my mind there is nothing else out there that can beat a NetApp in availability and durability. Thanks, Jamie Carr

2 1

In search of the ideal hardware config...
by Alf Mikula 03 Nov '00

03 Nov '00

I'm looking for performance tuning tips for NetApps. We're looking to upgrade from F760's with 9GB 7200rpm drives to F840's with either 18GB or 36GB drives. Due to the performance characterics of the system, more storage is not always better, but if I can work out a reduction in the number of spindles required to serve the same data, we'll save space and power in the datacenter. Degraded mode performance is also critical: we need to be able to reconstruct a failed disk in a reasonable amount of time, with minimal performance impact. My thinking is that performance and space requirements drive raid group size up, and degraded mode performance requirements drive raid group size down. I'm looking to find the balance. The relevant bottlenecks are: 1) CPU 2) Bus bandwidth to disk 3) Individual disk ops/sec bandwidth The questions I need to answer are: 1) How much CPU is required to do a particular number of ops/second? 2) How much data can I cram through the buses to the disk? 3) How many spindles do I need? 4) What should my raid size be? 5) How much of a performance hit will I take in degraded mode? Has anyone out there made an effort to solve the problem on this level? I'm working on answering 3) 4) and 5) above, and assume that I can derive results from benchmarks and specs to answer 1) and 2). To answer the spindle question, I need to know how many sequential block reads/sec, random block reads/sec, and sequential block writes/sec I can do with each disk. Any pointers you have would be helpful. Thanks, -Alf -- --------------------------------| It's Your Internet! Alf Mikula |-------------------------------------- Earthlink, Inc. |

2 1

RE: Anyone trying out 5.3.7 yet?
by Krause, Oliver 01 Nov '00

01 Nov '00

I have also good experience with a very big CIFS customer. No problems yet. We upgraded nearly two weeks ago ... -----Original Message----- From: Manny Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@mmcnet.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 1. November 2000 21:06 To: Chris Thompson Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Anyone trying out 5.3.7 yet? Do we have any other daring volunteers out there? Anyone with an 840? Chris Thompson wrote: > To followup to my own post > > > DOT 5.3.7 came out as Early Access at now.netapp.com last week (although > > there hasn't been a Field Alert about it). > > There has been now, of course. [But why no Subject header, and such a > curiously formatted body? This would never have happened while Diptish > was in charge :-) ] > > > I am inclined to upgrade to it (we're on 5.3.6R2 at the moment) but, of > > course, I don't want to be the first to do so! :-) Has anyone else dipped > > their toes in the water yet? > > Well, as no one seemed to be volunteering, I upgraded anyway (F740, nfs only). > Only problem so far has been some apparently spurious warning messages from > "quota resize", but the history that led to these is obscure, and "quota off" > followed by "quota on" has chased them away (and probably made the problem > unreproducable). > > 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

Anyone trying out 5.3.7 yet?
by Chris Thompson 01 Nov '00

01 Nov '00

DOT 5.3.7 came out as Early Access at now.netapp.com last week (although there hasn't been a Field Alert about it). There are a lot of bug fixes, not much new feature. My impression is that it's an attempt to produce a stable final, or near-final, 5.x release. It's got the rsh-clobbered- -by-telnet.hosts bug (25783) fixed, for example. I am inclined to upgrade to it (we're on 5.3.6R2 at the moment) but, of course, I don't want to be the first to do so! :-) Has anyone else dipped their toes in the water yet? Chris Thompson Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk

3 3

RE: syslog appliance avail ??
by Brookes, Matt 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

> storage of cache logs via ftp would be useful as well. This part you can do now with a Filer, and even better, you can then access those logs via CIFS or NFS from your log analysis tool. The rest I'll leave to others to debate the possibility or value of. > I am happy to beta test any such appliance and give feedback to the > supplier. I'm guessing you're already a Filer user, so I look forward to your feedback. :) Regards, Matt. ________________________________________________________________ Matthew Brookes mailto:mbrookes@netapp.com Systems Engineer http://www.netapp.com Network Appliance Tel: +353 1 4064600 Unit 36, Rathfarnham Gate Fax: +353 1 4064601 Dublin 14, IRELAND Mob: +353 86 8575127 > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Johnston [mailto:colinj@uk.psi.com] > Sent: 27 October 2000 13:21 > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com; isp-caching(a)isp-caching.com > Subject: syslog appliance avail ?? > > > Hi, > please ignore my email if you think not relevent to the toasters > or cache email lists > > Does anyone know of a 'syslog' applicance box that has a nice > management > interface to system, has a nice archival system for old logs and can > cope with large amounts of file store for old logs. > I am well aware this can be done with unix boxs etc and raid > arrays but > it seems since syslog is a single function the applicance > route map maybe > the bext method of progression. a newreader functionality to read the > syslog store would be useful as well. storage of cache logs via ftp > would be useful as well. storage of archival system email would > also be useful. > > I am happy to beta test any such appliance and give feedback to the > supplier. > > > Colin Johnston > SAEU > PSINET UK > > > > >

2 1

syslog appliance avail ??
by Colin Johnston 27 Oct '00

27 Oct '00

Hi, please ignore my email if you think not relevent to the toasters or cache email lists Does anyone know of a 'syslog' applicance box that has a nice management interface to system, has a nice archival system for old logs and can cope with large amounts of file store for old logs. I am well aware this can be done with unix boxs etc and raid arrays but it seems since syslog is a single function the applicance route map maybe the bext method of progression. a newreader functionality to read the syslog store would be useful as well. storage of cache logs via ftp would be useful as well. storage of archival system email would also be useful. I am happy to beta test any such appliance and give feedback to the supplier. Colin Johnston SAEU PSINET UK

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