toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

Re: Experience with Legato Networker NetApp clientpak?
by dmaloy＠atomaintl.com 19 Oct '00

19 Oct '00

I agree. I installed it on a 740 filer and it was very hit or miss with the backup actually working ea. night. Not good experience, would recommend using NFS which is the reason for my post earlier in the week. Don Maloy Sr. CAD Administrator Atoma Latching Systems 19888 Haggerty Rd Livonia, MI 48152 |--------+-------------------------> | | Scott Mikusko | | | <guerilla@conce| | | ntric.net> | | | | | | 10/19/00 12:36 | | | PM | | | | |--------+-------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Jason Ruiter <jruiter(a)erim.org> | | cc: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com>, (bcc: | | Don Maloy/PDD/DORTEC) | | Subject: Re: Experience with Legato Networker NetApp clientpak? | >----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Mainly, bad. It's really a junk product but can come in handy when it actually works properly. Forget about backing up any volumes/filesystems greater than 100Gb. It's very tempermental about with version of ONTAP you use, and has a habit of the na_nsrexec on the filer needing to be restarted a lot. Although when it does work right, you get decent backup rates. This was Legato's half-hearted attempt to get something on the market to support Netapps when they initially decided they weren't going to do NDMP (or were sp far behind in their product development, they knew NDMP woulnd't be supported for at least 12-18 months). I think they learned their lession now, as NW 6.0 support NDMP (apparently). I was struggling with the Client Pak for about 10 months before the size of my systems finally made me go back to NFS-mounted backups and looking at something better like Veritas, and their NDMP support. You won't find too many Legato or Netapp people proudly endorsing using the client pak.. It really was a poor interim product. -Scott On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Jason Ruiter wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm looking into getting the Networker NetApp clientpak for my Legato > networker installation. Does anyone have experience, good or bad, with this > product? I have a 720 running OnTap 5.3.6R2 > > Thanks > Jason Ruiter > ERIM > 734 623 2562 > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Scott T. Mikusko The stars are laughing at us, as we Systems Engineer crawl on and on across this antheap.... Concentric Network Corporation Internet Guerilla -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

1 0

Using large disks on Filers
by ray.griffith＠bt.com 19 Oct '00

19 Oct '00

All, We have a development environment which supports quite a few projects. In order to support the typical development lifecycle we have a directory structure on our servers mounted from the filer which mean we consume 10 or so quota tree entries per project. These are all on different volumes to separate databases, archives/export areas and software etc. to enable us to manage space allocation/snapshots for each different type of use. The set-up has been working very well for two years or so. What I perceive to be the issue with large disks, is for some of the volumes we will only need one or two disks to provide the required capacity (at 70Gb per disk for example = 140Gb with three disks approx just using simple arithmetic). This is below the optimum for performance on a raid group. The parity disk as a ratio is 1/3 of the volume which is inefficient by a long way. Given there is a limit of 255 quota trees per volume adding any more disks for performance/efficiency is a waste of space as the number of quota trees will be exceeded before the need for space is. As disks get larger the problem gets worse. I can see how this situation would not necessarily arise if you are an ISP but development is a different issue I feel. The way round this may be to have what I have decided to call "virtual volumes". By this I would create a volume with sufficient disks in the raid group to give me both performance and efficiency. This would the be able to support a number of these "virtual volumes" across those disks. Each of those "virtual volumes" would also need to be adjustable in size either up or down and facilitate all other volume characteristics. This would then allow me to have an efficient system and also be able to manage the quota tree, placement and snapshot issues. This would also allow me to make full use of say an F840. It's projected capacity I could never achieve in a clustered environment as the maximum number of shelves per head is still 16. The only way to reach the capacity the filer head can support is using larger disks. Have I missed anything? Is there a better way to resolve this other than the suggestion above? Do you see it as a problem - or am I out on a limb here? Thanks for any input Ray Griffith

2 1

Experience with Legato Networker NetApp clientpak?
by Jason Ruiter 19 Oct '00

19 Oct '00

Greetings, I'm looking into getting the Networker NetApp clientpak for my Legato networker installation. Does anyone have experience, good or bad, with this product? I have a 720 running OnTap 5.3.6R2 Thanks Jason Ruiter ERIM 734 623 2562

2 1

test
by Davinder Gupta 19 Oct '00

19 Oct '00

1 0

Opinions on NetApp clusters
by Brian L. Brush 18 Oct '00

18 Oct '00

At headquarters, my company is using an F230 and an F740 to provide NFS for about 200 Sun boxes and lots of Pea Seas (via Samba, actually--don't ask). We also have a collection of host-attached storage devices on various Sun servers. For some time, we've been migrating our most massive data stores to the F740. Seeking more performance, capacity, and redundancy, we're now considering replacing the F740 with a pair of clustered F760s. We've been using filers for a couple of years and have discussed the options with NetApp and our VAR. I would like to hear some opinions about and experiences with NetApp's clustering solution. Because of the expense and the risks of consolidating most of our data in one place, we want to be sure the configuration will provide the level of protection we need. Is it robust? Does it really have the capabilities claimed by the documentation? Are there any tips or tricks or "gotchas" we should know before we proceed? --Brian L. Brush Senior Systems Administrator Paradyne Corporation

1 0

Backups with DUMP command
by Clawson, Simon 18 Oct '00

18 Oct '00

Hi! I am currently having a problem with Budtool. We have just had a F760 head put in, on an evaluation, to replace our F520. We have Budtool installed and running OK for he F520. However, with the new filer in place, Budtool fails to run. I have restarted the daemons and get an error message "Invalid License Password" I am guessing that this is because the new filer has a different numerical host id. I am told that Legatto are being quite diffiult where Budtool is concerned, and we made a decision to lapse support this year due to the EOL of the tool and the desire to replace it with Veritas. With this in mind, I'd like to be able to use the Dump command for now, until I get a solution for Budtool. Has anyone had experince of multiple tape backups with dump? Can it be done? Can the NetApps control the Jukebox? Any advise would be greatfully recieved? Simon Simon Clawson Renoir Group Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

2 1

RE: Backups with DUMP command
by Cormier, Darleen 18 Oct '00

18 Oct '00

Hi Simon, You are correct in that Budtool fails to run because the new filer has a different host id, however you should be able to get Legato to move the license from one host to another for you. In answer to the question about controlling the robotics from the filer, the answer is no. If the library you are using can be setup in sequential or stacker mode, you will be able to use it, with the native dump and restore utility, but for true robotics control, you do need a 3rd party backup package. I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are several packages that are certified with the filer, including Veritas. The others are Workstation Solutions, www.worksta.com <http://www.worksta.com> , Commvault, www.commvault.com <http://www.commvault.com> , and Syncsort, www.syncsort.com <http://www.syncsort.com> . You might want to check them out, as they all offer different features and benefits, and are cheaper than Veritas. Hope this helps. -----Original Message----- From: Clawson, Simon [mailto:simon_clawson@mentorg.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:21 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Backups with DUMP command Hi! I am currently having a problem with Budtool. We have just had a F760 head put in, on an evaluation, to replace our F520. We have Budtool installed and running OK for he F520. However, with the new filer in place, Budtool fails to run. I have restarted the daemons and get an error message "Invalid License Password" I am guessing that this is because the new filer has a different numerical host id. I am told that Legatto are being quite diffiult where Budtool is concerned, and we made a decision to lapse support this year due to the EOL of the tool and the desire to replace it with Veritas. With this in mind, I'd like to be able to use the Dump command for now, until I get a solution for Budtool. Has anyone had experince of multiple tape backups with dump? Can it be done? Can the NetApps control the Jukebox? Any advise would be greatfully recieved? Simon Simon Clawson Renoir Group Systems Administrator Mentor Graphics Uk Rivergate London Road Newbury Berkshire RG14 2QB <<Clawson, Simon.vcf>>

1 0

Considering NetApp
by David Murphy 18 Oct '00

18 Oct '00

Is there an unofficial NetApp faq available? I'm considering NetApps for the first time (as backend storage for Sun/Solaris webservers), and could really use a brief roadmap/glossary on what modules a filer comprises, how the availability features compare with OS failover, filesystems, snapshots etc. basically the truth, as compared with the marketing blurb ;) Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. -- When asked if it is true that he uses his wheelchair as a weapon he will reply: "That's a malicious rumour. I'll run over anyone who repeats it." Stephen Hawking - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/0001/07/features/features1.html] David Murphy - For PGP public key, send mail with Subject: send-pgp-key

3 2

Getting Total storage?
by jmiddlebrooks＠datalink.com 17 Oct '00

17 Oct '00

sysconfig -r Volume vol0 (root) RAID group 0 RAID Disk HA.ID HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ----- ------------ ---- -------------- -------------- parity 0a.5 0a 0 5 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.6 0a 0 6 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.1 0a 0 1 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.2 0a 0 2 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.3 0a 0 3 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 data 0a.4 0a 0 4 FC:A 8600/17612800 8683/17783112 Spare disks RAID Disk HA.ID HA SHELF BAY CHAN Used (MB/blks) Phys (MB/blks) --------- ----- ------------ ---- -------------- -------------- spare 0a.0 0a 0 0 FC:A 0 8683/17783112 Aspen> df Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /vol/vol0/ 31627472 12681540 18945932 40% /vol/vol0/ /vol/vol0/.snapshot 7906864 366356 7540508 5% /vol/vol0/.snapsh ot Above I have included the sysconfig -r and df commands from my filer which is a F720. From the df I have 31627472KB +7906864KB= 39,534,336,000GB of available storage From the sysconfig -r I have 5 data disks each with 8683 Physical MB so 5*8683MB= 43,415GB of available storage or From the sysconfig -r I have 5 data disk each with 8600 Used MB so 5*8600MB = 43GB of availabe storage WHY IS MY AVAILABLE LOWER THAN IT SHOULD BE? Thanks in advance, Jason Middlebrooks Systems Engineer Datalink Corp. 888-933-9327 x2970 jmiddlebrooks(a)datalink.com jasonmiddlebrooks(a)yahoo.com

4 3

RE: snoop/tcpdump like tool for ontap?
by Labelle, Steven 17 Oct '00

17 Oct '00

Yes, it's called "pktt". See http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/capconv/ or http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/NetCache_Appliance/5.0/html/cmdref… te6a.htm#1017371 for an example of how to use it. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Michael Galloway [mailto:mgx@ornl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 9:00 AM To: Toaster Mail Exploder Subject: snoop/tcpdump like tool for ontap? good day ... does ontap have a tool like snoop or tcpdump available? -- michael

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