There is only one X400 CTO node that is in the same equivalence class as the 32000X-SSD - and that node, specifically, is the X400-SSD 32TB/24GB RAM. It's equivalence class 5.
Here's a handy document. Since node equivalence changed from pre-7.x to 7.x, it's worth a read.
Node equivalence checks are not functional in OneFS 7.1.0.0. Please open a case with support so we can resolve this issue manually.
This will be fixed in a future OneFS update (likely the maintenance release after 7.1.0.1). When you open up the case, please reference internal bug ID 120151.
bhalilov1
1 Rookie
•
114 Posts
0
February 26th, 2014 04:00
This was caused by bug in 7.1.0 that is supposedly fixed in incoming 7.1.0.2
Engineering deleted the second pool an re-added the nodes to the first pool using internal use disi command
chughh
122 Posts
0
February 6th, 2014 23:00
please provide more information about version which you have upgraded too so I can suggest some workaround..
bhalilov1
1 Rookie
•
114 Posts
0
February 7th, 2014 04:00
By upgrade I meant we added 3 Nodes to the existing cluster, not OneFS upgrade. We're running 7.1.
peglarr
99 Posts
1
February 7th, 2014 05:00
Hi Burhan,
There is only one X400 CTO node that is in the same equivalence class as the 32000X-SSD - and that node, specifically, is the X400-SSD 32TB/24GB RAM. It's equivalence class 5.
Here's a handy document. Since node equivalence changed from pre-7.x to 7.x, it's worth a read.
https://support.emc.com/docu44518_Isilon-Supportability-and-Compatibility-Guide.pdf?language=en_US
bhalilov1
1 Rookie
•
114 Posts
0
February 7th, 2014 06:00
Thanks Rob
We have the following type of nodes
Isilon X400-4U-Dual-24GB-2x1GE-2x10GE SFP+-32TB-400GB SSD
Isilon IQ 32000x-ssd
According to the documents they are equivalent in class 5.
BernieC
76 Posts
2
February 7th, 2014 10:00
Node equivalence checks are not functional in OneFS 7.1.0.0. Please open a case with support so we can resolve this issue manually.
This will be fixed in a future OneFS update (likely the maintenance release after 7.1.0.1). When you open up the case, please reference internal bug ID 120151.
Thanks,
Bernie