symrdf query output

Question

Hi all,

I've got a question regarding the output of the symrdf query. I've looked for docs about my question but can't find any specific answers. Its possibly me asking the wrong questions but i thought i'd ask here

Source (R1) View Target (R2) View MODES
-------------------------------- ------------------------ ----- ------------
ST LI ST
Standard A N A
Logical T R1 Inv R2 Inv K T R1 Inv R2 Inv RDF Pair
Device Dev E Tracks Tracks S Dev E Tracks Tracks MDA STATE
-------------------------------- -- ------------------------ ----- ------------

DEV001 0648 RW 0 13182801 RW 00A7 WD 0 631739 S.. SyncInProg
DEV002 0664 RW 0 4820686 RW 0780 WD 0 3201 S.. SyncInProg
DEV003 0680 RW 0 13724224 RW 0AD0 WD 0 602633 S.. SyncInProg
DEV004 069C RW 0 11706587 RW 0AEC WD 0 532913 S.. SyncInProg
DEV005 06B8 RW 0 12663157 RW 0B08 WD 0 2539513 S.. SyncInProg
DEV006 0050 RW 0 213724 RW 00DF WD 0 6620 S.. SyncInProg

Total -------- -------- -------- --------
Track(s) 0 56311179 0 4316619
MB(s) 0 1759724 0 134894

My question is this, you have the source view and the target view, on each view you have R1 invalid tracks and R2 invalid tracks, but why are the invalid tracks on the R2 side different in each view?

Sorry if this is a noobish question but im just not getting why the invalid tracks are different from the source and target view on the R2 device.

Thanks,

TC

xe2sdc · Answer

TC first of all, welcome to our forums ....

Please don't forget to introduce you in our Coffee Break ... You'll find a lot of interesting things at the coffee machine

..

symrdf command queries both sides of RDF link at the same time, however each box answers symrdf queries at slightly different time (depending on FE/BE workload, GK availability, RDF link availability and a lot of different things) .. And that's why you have a slightly different output from each side of your RDF link.
At least that's why I've been told.. It looks convincing to me .. However I can't guarantee it's 100% correct

If someone have better/different answers, please contribute

Message was edited by:
Stefano Del Corno

Allen Ward · Answer

I always thought it was showing the invalid tracks relating to that "phase" of the process. So the R1 Invalid tracks showed what had to be captured for synchronization the R2 side showed what had to be applied in that cycle.

Now that I think about it, that would only apply to SRDF/A (which is all we use), but it made sense to me there.

xe2sdc · Answer

As you noticed, 'capture' is typical of SRDF/A, when you are already in 'Consistent' state .. Here we are trying to bring devices in Synchronized state

Allen Ward · Answer

Yes, since we don't use 'pure' SRDF I was looking at the whole thing a different way. Hopefully within the next year we will be implementing SRDF as well as the currently implemented SRDF/A.It doesn't matter how much you read about it. To really understand it you have to use it!

Allen Ward · Answer

I've always considered SRDF/S to be 'pure' SRDF. I guess it is one of those things that depends on how you use the terms. With our account team they tend to talk about SRDF/S as SRDF and then they use the modifiers for anything else.Yet another example of how we all have to be careful of how we speak of things on here. With a huge variety of experience levels and especially considering multiple native languages involved...I stand corrected

xe2sdc · Answer

We don't have a 'pure' SRDF ..We have SRDF/S (synch..) and SRDF/A (asynch..) with some other variation .. like SRDF/AR, SRDF/STAR, SRDF/Cascading, SRDF/DM ... You are always using SRDF .. with different flavours However you are right .. you have to use it. And I hope you'll use all our flavours soon

xe2sdc · Answer

I've always considered SRDF/S to be 'pure' SRDF. Iguess it is one of those things that depends on howyou use the terms. With our account team they tend totalk about SRDF/S as SRDF and then they use themodifiers for anything else.It's true to some degree since SRDF/S was introduced first .. and later we offered everything else .. However we EMCers should talk about SRDF family of products (as well as TimeFinder family of products) ...

RRR · Answer

Did you already give the SRDF/Cascading thingy a try ?

xe2sdc · Answer

I prefer the real thing .. Virtual is for geeks

xe2sdc · Answer

Shame on me .. not yet !! However I'm trying to push SRDF/Cascading at a customer site .. I need to give it a try ..

RRR · Answer

Isn't there a virtual Symmetrix somewhere we can try this on ?Cisco announced a virtual switch yesterday: the Nexus 1000V, so why not 3 virtual DMX's to try SRDF/Cascade on

RRR · Answer

Sure... Please Mr EMC, I'd like to have 3 small, but noisy and energy consuming DMX's to test SRDF/Cascade..... I don't think they'll even answer that question.

Allen Ward · Answer

Sure, we can hook up 3 virtual DMX5 arrays with some VSANs on the virtual switches, and test out SRDF/V

dynamox · Answer

i bet somebody in a few years going to look at your comment and say ...how did he know in 2008 ..what we are about to announce. It must be an inside job ..

Allen Ward · Answer

Now I'm worrying about the guys in the suits showing up to find out how I breached their security

Host Systems

symrdf query output

Was this post helpful?