Look in your documentation for 'symclone'. It works a bit differently from symbcv, but it's more or less the same command and applies to clones.

You already found how to add clones locally. Now add "-sid" option and add remote targets

symld -g powersnap -sid symm2 -tgt add dev 0BAD

Have fun

Message was edited by:
Stefano Del Corno

Hi Stefano,

Nope... this will give you Devices cannot be added; the existing group has devices from a different Symmetrix.

I already tested that. The command was::
./symld -g powersnap addall dev -range 295:29E -sid 422 -tgt

symclone can't be used to add devices into symdg.

Oh you are right. You need 2 different DG.
Go create a DG with R2 devices and add -tgt the clones. When you have to create a clone on R2 side, use the "other" powersnap dg.

We fought with this for a while and I gave up for the simple (manual) solution. It will only work for you if you have another device group at the other end of the link.

I added the clones as TGT to the R2 device group on the remote host. Then I exported the DG and Imported it on the R1 side. Then I added the local TGT and everything showed up fine. Unfortunately it is a pain when anything changes.

What protection were your BCVs on your DMX3?

Yes, but that's in old DCs. So, we have Site A and B which are old DC using BCVs (we have real BCVs and emulated with RAID5 protection - I believe we use mostly those now) on DMX3. We also have new sites C and D where we use clones only with DMX4. My question was regarding situation at site C and D - where no BCVs are used at all.

At the start of project we had quite discussion should we use BCVs or clones and we use them for backup only and mostly all technical people were in favour of BCVs (perhaps we don't like changes), but then people upstairs and EMC went for clones because we have been told BCV would not be any longer supported soon anyway as clones are taking over (and indeed, in V-Max they already did).

Thanks Allen, we might test this tomorrow after I consult SAN guys managing Symmetrix box. They were also a bit surprised by this too (their background was also with TM/mirror).. we were hoping that perhaps we just need to create BCV type device and then emulation would take care of everything, but obviously not.

On DMX3 we use RAID5 (which is kind of emulation of clone anyway). However that separate data centers and not related here. Now we have 2 brands new DCs where we went for clones only.

RAID5 BCVs are not really BCVs, but clones.

So you could go back to using BCV commands by simply adding the BCV flag to your current clone devices.

However I generally think it is a good idea to move away from emulating BCVs when possible as it clears up any confusion about what is going on under the covers.

OK, this sounds as simplest thing to do if it works. Just to confirm to see if I get it right; I create 1 group which would type regular with local clone devices and one type rdf1 where I add remote devices.

I assume there should be no problem having 2 symdgs using same source device then? This seems to be exactly as article id 1.0.113384697.2708016 is suggesting as well.

OK, I might test that myself tonight if there won't anything on TV (and will get back with results).

Hi Stefano,

I had to rethink this... obviously I should be able to create -tgt against R2, but then I do not have control from PowerSnap where I could control R1 - R2 sync, but rather I have to do it manually. This is not what we look for

Hrvoje if your RDF links are running SRDF/S you can safetly use emulation on R2 side. Convert your RAID5 devices to R-5+BCV and use them just like regular BCV. I agree with Quincy that emulation should be avoided if possible. But it looks like it's impossible to avoid using emulation in this specific example.

I've been told they will add gatekeeper and we'll retest it again then.

Tc tc tc... but then I need license too, right? Or not?

I played with second group with R2+clone, but adding those ended up saying
Failed to perform the operation because the specified Symmetrix unit is remotely-attached to this host

I'm not an Symm expert so I will see what SAN guys will say on that. I know that with BCV this happens when you specify remote sid instead of local sid which in this case with clones we can't. But it could simply because that device (R2) is not masked to that host which sounds sane enough

Anyway, I will see what SAN guys will say now, but I guess using clones for what we hoped with PowerSnap won't be possible here (which is cool as design was done by EMC hehe).

If you could confirm that if we use R-5+BCV and no TM/Mirror would be required that would be great.