My officemate's response to this was: `They don't think that thing's cool? I think that thing's _mad_ cool! What're they talking about?'
Yeah, the 700's are more of a classy, understated cool.. Side by side with our 540, the 760's look cleaner, but from a distance lack some visual pananche...
Despite appearances, the 540 is about to go away to be superceded by the pair of 760's. The discussion over 5.2.1 has me slightly concerned. For my own peace of mind, is there someone out there running a pair of clustered 760's with 9gb disks, 4 shelves, with nfs, cifs, and quotas that can tell me its running nice and stable for them? I need a pat on the back at this point :).
We had to back out of a CF configuration consisting of two F630s using NFS, CIFS, quotas, and 5.2.1. We backed out to 5.0.2, which we upgraded from.
We were hit by a bug in the NFS file locking code. Under very unusual and very hard to reproduce conditions a request for a NFS file lock would tickle a bug that would also erroneously set a CIFS lock on the file. The filer would see the bogus CIFS lock and not respond to the NFS lock request, thinking that the file was already locked by CIFS. The NFS process would hang with a "NFS server not responding" message.
It was very hard to reproduce deliberately, but we have thousands of unix users who do little else but read email using pine. The users' inboxes were not on the filer, but their home directories, including saved mail folders were. Whenever pine opens a folder, it locks it. With thousands of users reading email, we would only see a dozen or so hung pine processes each day, which we would kill off. But then we discovered that using CIFS to access a mail folder with a bogus lock would crash the filer. When we started getting almost daily crashes, we had to back out.
Recently Netapp sent me email saying that this bug is fixed in the following release:
http://now.netapp.com/download/software/ontap/5.2.1P1/
Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640
University of Virginia ITC Unix Support