3 Mar
1999
3 Mar
'99
3:55 p.m.
We were told that we needed to use wackz (not wackq, not wacky.. wackz *sigh* the Great UnDocumented, what a confidence builder) from, get this, 5.1.2P2D7. to fix the quotas problem on our one limping filer.
We had the same thing happen here. I gotta say, and this probably sounds a bit stupid - but i wish that NetApp *would* document "wackz" (what's the difference between wacky and wackz anyway?) - and i really wish they'd change the name of the command. I hate telling management that i just ran a command called "wack" on their $250,000 filer. It just makes me feel a bit stupid.
I guess i probably just need to work on my self-esteem ;-)
Graham