toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13523 discussions

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

Re: Gigabit cards and HP switches
by Brian Hostetter 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

I called netapp on this one. They immediatly wanted to replace the NIC saying it was a known issue. I guess that is probably the best solution anyway. Thanks for all the help everyone! --Brian

1 0

RE: Using large disks on Filers
by ray.griffith＠bt.com 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

Bruce, We do share - but you can only share so much... I only have four volumes per filer that I need to implement a project. Other volumes are there because of the space requirements even then I only have seven! - that is an extra two to hold databases which tend to be LARGE and another to hold the development areas. Due to the size of a volumes it already takes us getting on for 6 hours to do some restores (The backups are quicker) Larger volumes would extend that time which would become unacceptable. Not that we have to do many due to the way it all hangs together... BTW our developers seem to like it! Which may surprise you. Ray Griffith BT Information Systems Engineering Tel: Bracknell +44 (0)1344 822822 Tel: Stockley Park +44 (0)20 8587 6691 Tel: Mobile +44 (0)7801 977354 Fax: Bracknell +44 (0)1344 822812 E-mail: ray.griffith(a)bt.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: 20 October 2000 09:16 To: ray.griffith; toasters Subject: Re: Using large disks on Filers It's insane. You're overdesigned. I applaud the attempt at structure - it's impressive that anyone out there would actually let their work environment be that structured - but it's too much. Scale back, and just deal with the fact that you have to share snapshots and filesystems sometime. Quotas and proper permissions take care of the rest. Proper monitoring prevents "running amok" from becoming critical. Bruce

2 1

RE: Using large disks on Filers
by ray.griffith＠bt.com 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

Bruce, Consider the following: One "project" using good configuration management techniques should have areas for: Development - where the programmers dream up the code Integration - where the developers code is brought together System test - where the whole issue is tested for compliance to the spec Released - which is a "development system copy" of what is sent to production to facilitate testing future bug fixes while the next release is prepared. A project based web area where project based documentation and information can be maintained as both development and released versions A customer acceptance test area A training area Each of these instances may have one of: A database A www area An area for developing the code An Archive log area for the database An Administrative area for the database An Export area for the database A configuration management tool area All of these area's have to be set up so the correct ownership and access rights are maintained to stop for example: Developers code from inadvertently accessing any other area and vice versa One projects members from accessing another projects areas Access via a web listener giving inadvertent access to other parts of a directory tree/system. I.e. it is treated like a production system in this aspect. Efficient use of resources e.g. not having one web listener per project. All of these areas need to have space management so something running amok in the developers area will never fill up or inhibit the space allocated to system test for example. By simple rules it is not a good idea to have database and archive logs in the same location nor should you put exports on either of these locations. The database is Oracle and an OFA compliant structure means the admin side is somewhere else in the tree. We use this to put the "second" control file on a different volume - as is good database practice. When it comes to snapshots database areas typically on a development system get changed, not often, but when we delete a database I do not wish to have to wait until the snapshot rules we apply to code development areas expire before I can recreate or restore that database from a backup. Each project may have up to five parallel iterations each of which is a replica of the above. Each instance of the application when a project runs shall only "talk" to its appropriate bits and pieces. I.e. hopefully the code that runs in the integration area will not talk to the copy of the system test database (and vice versa) Some other constraints: Operating system upgrades should not impinge on development work Other software upgrades should not impinge on development work The development process when taking on upgrades should be able take on the upgrade as the appropriate software progresses through the life cycle e.g. first development, then integration etc. etc. One project should not be able to interfere with another project space allocation wise. Projects should be easy to add, delete and archive (archive = when no longer required) New projects should be up and running with full blown facilities as quickly as possible Use resources efficiently Be run with the minimum number of administrative staff. When you then say 100 projects and we are still growing, with getting on for 250 databases (for good reasons projects do not have all the bells and whistles above - but we have to be able to cater for tomorrows request! - you know what developers are like...) on two filers maybe you perhaps begin to see a little more of the problem. We have a design which is working well at this time but we perceive we will not be able to grow this "shape" of implementation of very large disks for the reasons stated. In the end we may have 1000 or more projects - please pass the aspirin I have a headache. Ray -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: 19 October 2000 19:43 To: ray.griffith; toasters Subject: Re: Using large disks on Filers You're out on a limb. There's no need to do the segmentation you are describing. Just combine some projects together in the same volume and let them share the same snapshot schedule and possibly the same quota tree. This really should not be a problem. Bruce

2 1

RE: Experience with Legato Networker NetApp clientpak?
by Mike Sphar 19 Oct '00

19 Oct '00

Our experience has been the same. Constant vague and non-descriptive errors (like vol:/vol0 cannot open or somesuch that Legato support was completely unable to help with) and generally a lack of confidence in the reliability of the backups. We've since gone back to NFS-based backups as well. Not as efficient as I would like, but reliability is more important than efficiency with backups. -- Mike Sphar - Sr Systems Administrator - Engineering Support Services, BOFH, GWP, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, BFD -----Original Message----- From: dmaloy(a)atomaintl.com [mailto:dmaloy@atomaintl.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:15 PM To: Scott Mikusko Cc: Jason Ruiter; 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Experience with Legato Networker NetApp clientpak? 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

Gigabit cards and HP switches
by Brian Hostetter 19 Oct '00

19 Oct '00

Got a weird problem. I have a 740 and two 760's. Right now the 40 is plugged into a 3com gigabit switch. But when I move it to the new HP procurve switch it does not come up. The really weird thing is I can move either of my 760s over there and they work great. Is there something really different about the 40's and 60's for ethernet config? The 740 does have a default setting in the rc file that looks like this: ifconfig e8 `hostname`-e8 mediatype auto The 760 does not have anything in the rc for ethernet since it is not in service yet. Ideas? --Brian

3 2

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

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