toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

RE: NT Permissions and Unix
by Hawley, Rob 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Here are two articles that will allow you to diagnose security problems: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts2… l http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts1… l This is a more detailed article on the security model http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/con… .shtml If the answer does not fall out of the above troubleshooters (or you need access to NOW), please contact customer support. I would suggest having the qtree type, the output of wcc -u root, and the reported ACL for the directory you are trying to write to available when you call. You should also report the version of the filer and the version of the client. They should be able to solve this very quickly. mailto: hawleyr(a)netapp.com US Mail: Network Appliance Inc. Windows Networking Engineering 495 E Java Dr Phone/pager: 408-822-6661 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 http://www.netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:PMAGLINGER@scvl.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 12:41 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: NT Permissions and Unix Greetings: We have a NetApp 740 filer running ONTAP 5.3.6R2. We have created a qtree on vol0 set up as NTFS with full control local and share permissions granted to Everyone (although later we want to clamp this down). We want one of our UNIX servers to be able to write to a subdirectory inside this qtree, but it will not work. When we try to do a RCP into that subdirectory from the UNIX box as root, we get a permission denied error. What are we missing?

1 0

Home directory vs. any other directory
by Maglinger, Paul 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Why is it that both Unix and WindowsNT clients can read and write to the Home directory and not to qtrees created by us unless you set up mapping? What is the difference in permissions and can the Home 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

NT Permissions and Unix
by Maglinger, Paul 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Greetings: We have a NetApp 740 filer running ONTAP 5.3.6R2. We have created a qtree on vol0 set up as NTFS with full control local and share permissions granted to Everyone (although later we want to clamp this down). We want one of our UNIX servers to be able to write to a subdirectory inside this qtree, but it will not work. When we try to do a RCP into that subdirectory from the UNIX box as root, we get a permission denied error. What are we missing? 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

BACKUP "APPLIANCE"
by Joe Luchtenberg 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

The "appliance" term is so overused now, so please grant a little leniency on this one... Is anyone out there using a backup "appliance" to run NDMP-compliant software, such as Veritas or CommVault? I know there are new hardware "appliance" manufacturers springing up almost daily, and some of them are venturing into tuned boxes for specific applications, like e-mail or backup. Am interested in: - rack-mountable, small form factor (1U or 2U) - easy implementation - reliability - ease of administration - low initial cost/TCO - viability of manufacturer (can they support their product? are they going to be there to continue to support it in 3+ years?) Would prefer NT/W2K/W2K Adv Srvr OS, but any Unix/Linux-based product would be okay, too. Also, want to stick with Veritas or CommVault, unless there is some compelling reason to consider another. TIA. Joe Joe Luchtenberg Dataline, Inc. New number and email, please update: 757.858.0600 858.0606 fax joe.luchtenberg(a)data-line.com

1 0

5.3.7 on 840
by Manny Kaiser 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Anyone install in a production environment 5.3.7 on an 840?

1 0

RE: Anyone trying out 5.3.7 yet?
by Reidenbach, Edward 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Data ONTAP 5.3.7 replaces the Data ONTAP 5.3.6H1R2 version. All F840 and F840c have just started to ship with the new Data ONTAP 5.3.7 release. We apologize for not having a sent a field alert when Data ONTAP 5.3.7 was initially posted to NOW. Ed Ed Reidenbach Manager, Data ONTAP, Multiprotocol and High Availability Network Appliance Phone: 408-822-6167 Email: edr(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 4:54 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Anyone trying out 5.3.7 yet? On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Chris Thompson wrote: > DOT 5.3.7 came out as Early Access at now.netapp.com last week (although The "recommended release" for an F840 is now listed as "n/a" and early access is 5.3.7. Wha'happened to 5.3.6H1 for F840s? Am I now in an indeterminate state on my F840 with no recommended release? Aiiieeee!!!! ;) But, it looks like 5.3.7 is the same for F{2,3,5,6,7,8}{0,3,4}0's. Wo-hoo! Until next time... The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

SUMMARY: Comments on NetApp clusters
by Brian L. Brush 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Attached are the messages I received in response to my query about clusters. Names have been removed to protect the guilty. --Brian L. Brush Senior Systems Administrator Paradyne Corporation Clustering is great, if you expect the head to go down a lot. In our experience, we have had more problems with disks, shelves, LRCs, etc going bad, all problems that clustering can not help. It does make it nice when we have to do maintenance, though; we can fail everything over to the second head, do the maintenance, power up the first head, and give back the disks to the first head. Repeat for the second head, and the cluster is ready to go without the user noticing. Just from personal experience, a F760 cluster is less cost effective than an F840c cluster. Due to a combination of hardware and software limitations with the 7xx series filers, a single F760 filer can handle 1.4TB of data (raw), or up to almost 3TB with Ontap 6.0. Unfortunately, a cluster of F760's can also handle only 1.4TB of data, or up to almost 3TB with 6.0. This makes sense when you consider that in a cluster, a single head will be doing the work of two. With the new 8xx series filers running 6.0, these limitations have been overcome, meaning a single filer can handle upwards of 6TB alone, or 12TB in a cluster. We have had one case where clustering came back and bit us, though. Something went bad and corrupted a volume. That caused the first filer to shutdown. The cluster pair saw that its partner was down, took over the disks, found a corrupted volume, and it shutdown too. But that said, clustering has probably saved us more than it has hurt us. I guess that's why we have 6 F760 clusters now. I like mine. When one died, no one else knew. The cluster partner even answered pings while I had the system board out on the bench. We got a pair of F840s scheduled to arrive tomorrow with the cluster options. It will be a week or so before we're able to test it and finally roll it into production. However, we visited the local NetApp office where they had a pair of F760s running ONTAP 6, and they were clustered. A co-worker and I spent over two hours playing with it. What happens if we do <this>? Or <that>? Or pull this cable? Or shutdown the filer when it's trying to fail back? All kinds of cool stuff I would never try with my own filers! The long and the short of it was: it behaved as claimed. The nice thing about netapp clustering is that you have two fully functioning filers. You do not have one active filer and another waiting in "standby" mode. So this means that you can put half your data on one filer and half on the other. If one fails, then the other assumes the identity of its failed partner and pretends to be two different filers. Of course one filer doing the work of two won't perform as well as two filers. To accomplish this feat, each filer needs two FCAL adapters and each disk shelf has two FCAL adapters. You connect the primary adapter on filer A to the primary adapters on filer A's shelves. You connect the secondary adapter on filer A to the secondary adapters on filer B's shelves. You connect the primary adapter on filer B to the primary adapters on filer B's shelves, and I'll bet you can guess what you connect to filer B's secondary adapter. In the event of a failover, the surviving filer has access to its partner's shelves via its secondary adapter. A failover looks like the failed filer rebooted, so it's not 100% seamless. NFS service will resume, but CIFS clients must reconnect. I just setup a 760 cluster. It is pretty cool, I have never had either filer fail so I don't really know how the cluster works in "real world" failures. But I have gone over multiple times and just unplugged one of the head units to show people how they work. From all the tests I have done, I am very confident in its abilities. Do you have any specific questions? On a side note, the setup of the 760 was so darn easy, I thought I must have done it wrong. If you do get a 760 cluster save your money and install it yourself. It was just two extra cables and 4 more commands.

1 0

RE: mount: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak
by Ricci, Steve 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

> My question is, if there is a way to put netapp in a > less secure mode, to allow mount requests from > unprivileged ports? What you can do is to turn the option nfs.mount_rootonly off. This option restricts mounts to the filer to use the privileged ports only (1 - 1024). Turning this option off should allow mounts to the filer from any port. - Steve Ricci - Technical Advisor - Network Appliance, Inc.

1 0

Comments on NetApp clusters
by Brian L. Brush 23 Oct '00

23 Oct '00

Thanks to everyone who responded to my query about NetApp clusters. All of the replies were useful and informative. The opinions offered were unanimously positive, and I'm confident a cluster of F760s can do the job. Of course, I would love to have 840s, but, as usual, it's a matter of money. --Brian L. Brush Senior Systems Administrator Paradyne Corporation

1 0

NTAP no longer offerring FDDI?
by Bruce Sterling Woodcock 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

According to the EOA notice it seems that there won't be any future FDDI adapters from NTAP. A sad day. Is nobody making PCI FDDI cards anymore or is the market opportunity for FDDI too small these days? Is everyone replacing it with Gigabit Ethernet? Bruce

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