that's an interesting question ...have you tried symmir detach ?

AFAIK it's not possible .. At least not with Symcli .. Maybe VTOCing the BCV will help .. But I'm not 100% sure

Sorry Dynamox .. I don't know any strange exotic symwhatever that handles this

i think symmir cancel can do this..

hmm, i take my comment back


cancel
Cancels the existing internal DeltaMark session between the specified standard and BCV
device(s). Once the DeltaMark session is cancelled, the corresponding BCV device goes
into the SplitNoInc state, and the BCV pair can no longer be incrementally established or
restored. Cancel can also be used to remove any one of the multi-BCV devices from a
multi-BCV set.
detach
Detaches a BCV device from the standard device and disassociates (unmarks) this pair as
the preferred pair when full establish and restore operations occur.

unfortunately it does not clear that field.

The relationship between the BCV and its standard is into the "hidden" area that the DMX will reserve in cache (and AFAIK on disk) when creating the pairs .. As you all know you can have as many as 16 different BCV for every STD but you can have only ONE STD for a given BCV .. That's becouse the relationship between the STD and the BCV is inside the BCV

VTOCing the device will fill the device (the BCV) with zeroes .. but I'm not sure that this will clear the relationship between the BCV and its last STD. As many of you -maybe- already know, when EMC changes a broken disk, all the BCVs on the broken disk will need a FULL establish. The main reason for the full establish is that you need to copy data from STD to BCV. But you also need to refresh the relationship between the STD and its BCV since the "hidden" data is lost and gone

Maybe MRTs2Symm or MLee may help further ...

Please look at Powerlink Support Solution emc94660.

Well, it looks like there currently isn't a way to do this. I guess we will figure out some other way of managing and tracking these previously used BCV's.

Thank you very much for all the helpful responses.

If someone gave usefull informations or -even better- a correct answer, you can reward her/him with the available points

I think it's pretty old but still true :-P .. I hope

yeah ..i saw that solution ..2005 ..pretty old, i thought something has changed since then, i guess not.

wdora,

Coming in on the flip side...sorry.

There is an internal way to do this in the Symmetrix, but most hesitate to do it unless there is an issue. In your case, you WANT this relationship discarded, etc. Right? There is a table for the relationship that can be cleared, but it is performed via the EMC Support Centre via your local CE or RTS.
What code family are you running? i.e.-5670, 5772?

Do you want or require all relationships discarded or specific? Continuous or scattered?

Michael

While running some tests I wondered myself if -maybe- removing and giving back the BCV attribute to a volume may clear the STD/BCV relationship.

So I picked up a BCV, run a full establish with a STD volume and split them.
While in split state I took the BCV and converted to unprotected. Symdev, at this point, didn't show the std-bcv relation. But when I added again the BCV flag to the volume, with another symconfigure run, the relation was back again !!

So even removing and adding back BCV flag will not clear the relation between a STD and a BCV

-s-

Message was edited by:
Stefano Del Corno

Hello Stefano,

Sorry, I am afraid I cannot help.....

As per MrTS2Symm our internal "Global Dynamic Assignment Table" tracks these STD => BCV, BCV => STD and Dynamic RDF relationships. Converting from BCV to STD to BCV would not clear this associated entry in the table since the volume still exists.

Your next "test" should be to perform an online deletion (this should remove the deleted Symm Vol # from the GDAT) and volume re-addition but that IS getting a little drastic....

IF this is more than a display issue or a display issue causing concern (without a workaround) then I suggest that the local friendly EMC Support person or the EMC Support Centre should submit an enhancement request

Regards,
Michael.

I used my unprotected BCV to test if removing and adding back the BCV flag may help with this issue. I took my unprotectd BCV, converted to unprotected and then added back the BCV flag .. And the relation was still there