This post is more than 5 years old
15 Posts
0
1164
Storage ports categorized in FM as hosts - can this be fixed?
We are running Cisco Fabric Manager 3.4(1a) and just added a VMAX to the fabric. Some of the storage ports came up correctly in the storage list but some came up in the host list.
The enclosure entry has 50:00:09:72:08:17:98:00-S for one of the ports in the storage list and 50:00:09:72:08:17:98:00-H for one of the ports in the host list.
How can we fix this?
Thanks!
healyj
141 Posts
0
November 28th, 2017 07:00
Hi there,
In our efforts to clean up the forum, we came across your question / statement.
If the question / statement is still valid, not expired and you need an update please reach out again and we try to get it answered.
As for now we set it to “answered.”
Regards,
Jim
ConnectrixHelpe
259 Posts
0
January 7th, 2010 14:00
Hello,
That is a known problem fixed in a newer revision of Fabric Manager. Just out of curiosity why are you using FM 3.4(1a)? What version and SAN-OS do you have on the switches?
Thank you.
ElizabethM1
15 Posts
0
January 7th, 2010 14:00
Do you know which version of Fabric Manager has the fix?
We picked up that version of Fabric Manager over a year ago and haven't had reason enough to upgrade considering the bureaucractic hurdles we have to jump through. We are testing 4.2(1a) for Fabric Manager only, but we can't go production with it yet (bureaucratic hurdles).
Our switches are at 3.3(2).
ConnectrixHelpe
259 Posts
1
January 7th, 2010 15:00
Unfortunately I can't find the exact bug number or revision it is fixed in. I did work with the VMAX team who discovered the issue and addressed it in a later FM version. If you need an exact answer on this please contact your local EMC support who should be able to dig up the exact bug number and release it was address in.
Is there a particular reason why you aren't using the corresponding FM and SAN-OS?
Thank you.
ElizabethM1
15 Posts
0
January 8th, 2010 07:00
Our reluctance to update the server software has to do with the process we have to go through to test, install, update the client, and push it to desktops - it's involves a lot of work, coordination and paperwork. Cisco doesn't make it easy eaither - version 4.2(1a) requires RHEL 5 and 32 bit which is outside our approved OS so I also have to go through a waiver process to even get the OS on a server.
We update the firmware on the switches about twice a year, depending on what fixes we need.
I don't think our SAN-OS and fabric manager version have been in sync since 3.02.
zippityann
19 Posts
0
February 3rd, 2010 11:00