This post is more than 5 years old
42 Posts
0
1109
Problems while creating meta device on VMAX
Hi.
I'm creating a meta device with some non-consecutive-ID devs in a VMAX. When I issue a symconfigure preview command to the meta script I get the following error:
[root@cenpro1:/tmp]# symconfigure -sid XXXX -f 20110919_meta_backup_racpro5.chg preview
Execute a symconfigure operation for symmetrix '00029260XXXX' (y/ ) ? y
A Configuration Change operation is in progress. Please wait...
Establishing a configuration change session...............Established.
Processing symmetrix 00029260XXXX
Performing Access checks..................................Allowed.
Checking Device Reservations..............................Allowed.
Locking devices...........................................Locked.
Validating configuration changes..........................Failed.
Definition 5 is in error:
All members of a meta device should reside on disks of the same physical group
Closing configuration change request......................Closed.
Terminating the configuration change session..............Done.
The configuration change session has failed.
The list of devices I'm using is:
| 084B Not Visible | ???:? 08B:C2 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 08B0 Not Visible | ???:? 09A:D3 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 08B1 Not Visible | ???:? 10A:C1 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 08B2 Not Visible | ???:? 10A:D0 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10B9 Not Visible | ???:? 07B:DA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10BA Not Visible | ???:? 07B:C9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10BB Not Visible | ???:? 08B:D9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10BC Not Visible | ???:? 09C:CA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10BD Not Visible | ???:? 10C:DA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10BE Not Visible | ???:? 10C:C9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10BF Not Visible | ???:? 09C:D9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C0 Not Visible | ???:? 07C:CA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C1 Not Visible | ???:? 08C:DA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C2 Not Visible | ???:? 08C:C9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C3 Not Visible | ???:? 07C:D9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C4 Not Visible | ???:? 10A:DA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C5 Not Visible | ???:? 09A:CA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C6 Not Visible | ???:? 09A:D9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C7 Not Visible | ???:? 10A:C9 RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C8 Not Visible | ???:? 08A:DA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
| 10C9 Not Visible | ???:? 07A:CA RAID-5 | N/Grp'd | RW 16384 |
What's wrong?
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
September 19th, 2011 12:00
meta members can be in different disk groups, it's important that those disk groups contain the same speed disks.
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
September 19th, 2011 09:00
as Qunicy pointed out , you will need to provide the diskgroup name.
To list disk groups
symdisk list -sid 123 -by_diskgroup
once you identified which one you want to use, you add the "disk_group=" parameter to your create file.
Quincy561
1.3K Posts
0
September 19th, 2011 09:00
Seems your bin has more than one disk group, and meta volumes can't span disk groups.
jvtv
42 Posts
0
September 19th, 2011 09:00
Correct, trying to form a meta from the available devs in the array, so I have several non-consecutive devs in the array to use.
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
September 19th, 2011 09:00
sorry, i thought you were creating brand new devices, you are just trying to create a meta device right ?
jvtv
42 Posts
0
September 19th, 2011 09:00
So I do can create a meta with devs from different DiskGroups but I have to identify them? or can't use devs from different DiskGroups?
sauravrohilla
859 Posts
0
September 19th, 2011 10:00
So from the list you have to figure out if the devices that you wish to be part of meta resides on the same disk group or not?
I like the command:
symdev list -disk_group #
to make sure i have the list of the device which resides on a particular disk group and then choose the devices which needs to be converted to meta
regards,
Saurabh
jvtv
42 Posts
0
September 21st, 2011 09:00
Thanks! I think that the problem was the geometry of the disks on each diskgroup.
SKT2
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
1.3K Posts
0
September 21st, 2011 11:00
don't you have a way to confirm?