Wow another person using Macs! I will have to start looking at DFS more closely.
We are stuck at 10.2.8 until we get rid of Outlook 2001:Mac which bombs all the time under 10.3
When you say 10.3 is better...is that the native smb support gets better or is there something else. I know that 10.2.6 and 10.2.8 built-in SMB performance was significantly less than with Dave ...something like 20-30% less. We are run 10.2.8 on Dual G5's with the Dave 5.0 client and we are getting an average of 55MB/s over GigE
We will probably be moving to First Class at beginning of the July which will eliminate our last non OSX native application!
-----Original Message-----
From: jeff.mery@ni.com
[mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:08
PM
To: toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: RE: QTree Size limits
IIRC...Dave and SMB handle DFS just fine. DFS
virtualizes the location of the data, but still presents it the same way as a
regular share. In fact, if you look at the disk location of the DFS root
on your DFS server, you'll see folders in the same organization as the DFS tree
itself.
A
better solution for your Mac guys and gals would be to get them on OS 10.3 if
their hardware will support it =)
Jeff Mery, MCP
National Instruments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Allow me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic
dorks that make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen."
TB - Penny Arcade
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Jack Lyons
<jack.lyons@martinagency.com> 05/12/2004 12:09 PM |
|
The
14 hours window is from filer to tape - a single LTO1 drive via NDMP
which I think equates to about 24 MB/s which I
think is pretty good?!?
We are not using DFS currently, the big question
is regards to how does DAVE
and/or OSX native SMB handle DFS - I haven't look
at it yet.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: Skottie Miller
[mailto:skottie@anim.dreamworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:51 PM
To: Jack Lyons
Cc: 'toasters@mathworks.com'
Subject: Re: QTree Size limits
Jack Lyons wrote:
> I have a 1.31 TB volume that is 90% full.
There are two solutions I
> have available to me. One is to try to
reduce the amount of space on
> the volume (but meeting resistance by users).
The other is to add
> space. I am trying to get approval for
another TB of disk space, but I
> don't think the best solution is to add it to
the existing QTree. My
> backup window for this volume is 14 -15 hours
currently and would only
> get bigger if I add space and that is not
acceptable. I know I can
> another qtree / cifs share but I was hoping I
could do it in such a way
> that I would still have another Qtree but
make it available to the user
> via a single CIFS Share.
seems you may want to investigate backup system
changes; a 14 hour window
for
a 1.3 TB volume is terrible. what backup
product(s) are you using?
For reference, we churn 800 - 1.2 TB per night,
out of 40 TB online,
and the first-phase backup window (filer to stage
pools) is 4 - 6 hours
long.
Then the data moves from staging pool to tape,
outside the backup window.
We use Tivoli storage manager off three Linux
backup servers, doing
file-at-a-time differential backups over NFS.
> I was hoping I could add another volume,
probably /vol/vol2 with a qtree
> called /vol/vol2/active clients and some how
make it appear to the user
> as a subdirectory under \\server\creative
<file:///\\server\creative>
Do you use DFS to mount shares ? My windows
guys think DFS supports
nesting shares as you describe.
-skottie
--
Scott Miller
| Animation Technology
work: skottie@dreamworks.com | Dreamworks Feature
Animation
life: skottie@pobox.com |
http://skottie-di.net
This email and its contents may be confidential.
If it is and you are not
the intended recipient, please do not disclose or
use the information within
this email or its attachments. If you have
received this email in error,
please delete it immediately. Thank you.