Networker

Re: [Networker] Sol10, Emulex LP1002 and Sc10K drive ordering

2008-06-17 13:17:11
Subject: Re: [Networker] Sol10, Emulex LP1002 and Sc10K drive ordering
From: Bruce Breidall <Bruce.Breidall AT CONCUR DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:02 -0700
It doesn't surprise me that the cbn numbering has changed, nor should
that be an issue. As long as you know, for example, that physical drive
0 equates to 3cbn (or whatever), and it is configured correctly and
consistently across all the servers sharing the drives, then that is all
that matters.

I would think that you would need to remove the devices (via jbconfig or
the gui) for the SN, and then recreate them with the correct mappings.
What I am not sure of is whether you will need to remove the whole
library or not before reconfiguring the drives on the new SN.

Make sure you run the emc matrix on your configuration to make sure it
is compliant. I know that EMC was quite sticky at one point using emulex
drivers for sun branded emulex cards - they required the Leadville
drivers for sun branded emulex cards, and the emc emulex drivers for
regular emulex cards.

That may be different now, not sure.

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Teresa Biehler
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:50 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] Sol10, Emulex LP1002 and Sc10K drive ordering

We've got one NW server and a storage node - both on Solaris 10.  The
two systems share a sc10K with 10 drives.  Several of the drives are
shared with DDS.  Since our current storage node's server hardware is
going end of life, we're replacing it with a new server.  

 

So, we've got the new storage node installed with Solaris 10 update
5/08.  The HBAs are Emulex LP11002 with the latest EMC supported
firmware using the Sun Emulex drivers.

 

The SNC connected to the shared drives should be presenting the drives
as 0cbn, 1cbn, 2cbn, 3cbn.  This is the order the old storage node and
the NW server see them in.  The new storage node, however, sees the
drives as 3cbn, 2cbn, 1cbn, 0cbn.

 

Has anyone ever seen something like this?  My gut says that as long as
the addressing is persistent, the order doesn't matter.  My gut also
says that an unexplained drive ordering may cause problems - like the
addressing unexpectedly changing to be 0cbn, 1cbn, 2cbn, 3cbn.  Does
anyone have any thoughts about what is happening?

 

Thanks.

Teresa

 


To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this
list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>