[sam-qfs-discuss] Mis-Matched versions crash servers

[McCreery, Lee CTR DISA]

That is correct.  One is a V880(4.2) and the other is a 4800(4.6).
Other than the 4800 being a former SAM client of 880 in the past, prior
to complete rebuild(Sol10 & SAM 4.6), they only share the network.

 

Lee

 

  _____  

From: Michael.Selway at Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Selway at Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:20 AM
To: McCreery, Lee CTR DISA
Cc: sam-qfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [sam-qfs-discuss] Mis-Matched versions crash servers

 

Hi!

            Perhaps I missed this, but are these two OS/SAM-QFS releases
on two physically different servers and otherwise just sharing the
wiring of the network?

 

regards,

Mike

 

On Jul 1, 2008, at 11:27 AM, McCreery, Lee CTR DISA wrote:





When you say "zoned" together, I think you mean on the disk's fiber

switch.  The new system has ALL NEW direct attached storage at the

moment.  The network switch has multiple systems zoned all together,

hence the network.

 

When I first started looking into this issue I did see HBA related

resets(Loop Offline, Loop On-line).  But I find it weird that the new

system would even consider taking orders from a system it doesn't share

anything in common with, other than a past client life(same IP &

hostname) and an Ethernet backbone.

 

Should be easy to re-create if you want to mess around.  Will shoot you

the config offline if you would like?

 

Lee

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Rich.Osborne at Sun.COM [mailto:Rich.Osborne at Sun.COM] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:07 AM

To: McCreery, Lee CTR DISA

Cc: sam-qfs-discuss at opensolaris.org

Subject: Re: [sam-qfs-discuss] Mis-Matched versions crash servers

 

The only thing that I could connect, was the fact that they shared the 

same SAN at one point. Are they still zoned together? Could one be 

sending a reset that causes the other HBA to react?

 

 

McCreery, Lee CTR DISA wrote:

 

Hi All,

 

Please don't allow the subject to mis-lead you. We are NOT sharing 

volume, disks, tape, etc. between different versions. They are each 

doing their own things. At least we thought they were.

 

I have been testing SAM 4.6. Our current SAN is at 4.2(1 master w/ 2 

clients) and the 4.6(1 master) system is a complete rebuild of 4.6 and

 

Solaris 10 that at one time was originally connected to the 4.2 SAN. 

It shares NO common disk, tapes, switches, etc. except for Ethernet 

network backbone.

 

When we reboot the SAM 4.2 systems it brings down the 4.6 system. It 

does NOT panic the kernel but instead halts the OS in its track with 

no messages or warning. It just drops to the "OK" prompt.

 

The only thing I can link to this issue is that that the 4.2 master 

still knows about the new 4.6 system via IP and hostname. And, the 

newly built 4.6 system uses some of the same volume naming conventions

 

that the old system has(qfs100, qfs200, etc.)

 

Has anyone else seen this behavior

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Lee G. McCreery

 

mailto:lee.mccreery.ctr at pens.disa.mil

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

_______________________________________________

sam-qfs-discuss mailing list

sam-qfs-discuss at opensolaris.org

http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sam-qfs-discuss

 

 

_______________________________________________

sam-qfs-discuss mailing list

sam-qfs-discuss at opensolaris.org

http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sam-qfs-discuss

 

Mike Selway

Sr. Consulting Engineer

 

301-332-4116

Storage Solutions Team

Sun Microsystems

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/sam-qfs-discuss/attachments/20080701/5d6fbd31/attachment.html