<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722275#M642115</link>
    <description>&lt;BR /&gt;We had this exact problem a few weeks ago when we moved some EMC LUN's and this created non-sequential LUN's on the same channel - which made some of our LUN's not visible to the HP server. EMC recommended we install patch;&lt;BR /&gt;PHKL_23259 (SCSI cumulative patch)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;which fixed our problem. I recommend you install it also if you are going to have non-sequential LUN's.</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 09:38:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Stefan Farrelly</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2002-05-13T09:38:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722273#M642113</link>
      <description>We have a HP9000 V class server connected to an EMC diskarray. Now we want to move few disk chunks from the V class and allocate them to an N class server connected to the same array.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The issue is that, at present the LUNS are allocated in a sequential odrer from say lunA to lunG and customer want to move the disks with lunB to lunD. This will leave a gap in the lun addressing. EMC guys have raised an issue that it could be a problem and the chunks after the address gap may not be accessible from HP after the change.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Is this a problem with in a setup with HP and EMC ?? We know that in normal conditions it shouldnt matter. anyone has experienced any probs ?? comments ??&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Naveen</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 09:04:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722273#M642113</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sreejith Kaliyam</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-13T09:04:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722274#M642114</link>
      <description>This *was* a problem with HP systems - you used to have to check that all your LUNs were in order sequentially (with no gaps) but as long as you are fully patched up, there won't be a problem.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Patch PHKL_21607 fixed this, but  the latest patch containing the fix is PHKL_26542. You should check dependencies of course.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;HTH&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Duncan&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 09:10:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722274#M642114</guid>
      <dc:creator>Duncan Edmonstone</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-13T09:10:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722275#M642115</link>
      <description>&lt;BR /&gt;We had this exact problem a few weeks ago when we moved some EMC LUN's and this created non-sequential LUN's on the same channel - which made some of our LUN's not visible to the HP server. EMC recommended we install patch;&lt;BR /&gt;PHKL_23259 (SCSI cumulative patch)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;which fixed our problem. I recommend you install it also if you are going to have non-sequential LUN's.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 09:38:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722275#M642115</guid>
      <dc:creator>Stefan Farrelly</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-13T09:38:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722276#M642116</link>
      <description>Thanks Duncan and Stefan..&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;  Just one more quick question.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; In our case, we have EMC connected to HP servers using Fiber channel.Do you have the EMC Disk Array on Fibre Channel or SCSI ?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks again...&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 11:46:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722276#M642116</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sreejith Kaliyam</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-13T11:46:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722277#M642117</link>
      <description>Either way it doesn't matter - Fibre Channel still uses the SCSI protocol for presenting devices to the OS, so it's the same patches (&amp;amp; problem) on both.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;HTH&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Duncan</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 11:53:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722277#M642117</guid>
      <dc:creator>Duncan Edmonstone</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-13T11:53:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722278#M642118</link>
      <description>Hi Neil&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We have a combination of both to teh same frame. The Fibre doesnt a have the 128 lun limiation where as the SCSI has and the patch&lt;BR /&gt;PHKL_26542  resolves the problem of lun mistmatch .&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Manoj Srivastava</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 12:49:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722278#M642118</guid>
      <dc:creator>MANOJ SRIVASTAVA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-13T12:49:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722279#M642119</link>
      <description>&lt;BR /&gt;We have fibre connected EMC's.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2002 12:54:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722279#M642119</guid>
      <dc:creator>Stefan Farrelly</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-13T12:54:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722280#M642120</link>
      <description>Thanks for all the help Guys,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I will apply this patche before I go ahead and do the changes in the EMC.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thank again&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2002 04:13:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722280#M642120</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sreejith Kaliyam</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-14T04:13:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722281#M642121</link>
      <description>Just to clarify a typo and give a hint to the patch warning of PHKL_21607.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;   PHKL_21607 can introduce symptoms that include longer boot times and longer ioscan times.  These symptoms have only been seen on V-Class systems with a large number (900+) LUNs on EMC disk arrays attached via Fibre Channel.  With the patch installed, a typical boot time increases from 30 to 60 minutes; and ioscan(1M) takes up to 20 minutes (with or without the '-k' option).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We have the following SCSI IO Subsystem Cumulative Patches available:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;PHKL_25938 Rating=2 20.12.2001&lt;BR /&gt;   or&lt;BR /&gt;PHKL_26452 Rating=1 02.04.2002&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;As PHKL_26452 is very new and therefor has only a rating of 1 I would prefer the PHKL_25938.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2002 08:14:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722281#M642121</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johannes Seippel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-14T08:14:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722282#M642122</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Installing the mentioned patch will create dummy luns in order to keep the sequential order in tact. However when you have downtime. I would prefer to export the vgs, reassign Target/Lun adresses and then import the vgs again on the V class and N class. This way you have a clean environment without dummy luns.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;HtH,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Mark</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2002 08:18:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722282#M642122</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark van Hassel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-14T08:18:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HP9000 and EMC Disk array</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722283#M642123</link>
      <description>Yes, It could be a problem. The specifics will probably determine just how. On a 10.20 system we had to install the SCSI cumulative patch (and several pre-requisites) to handle a similar gap in the LUN sequence (HP problem). On an 11.00 system, additional volumes couldn't be found on one occassion, at least not without a reboot (which we couldn't afford). We had to allocate other volumes to contiguous LUNs to keep going.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;-Kirb</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2002 10:16:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/hp9000-and-emc-disk-array/m-p/2722283#M642123</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kirby A. Joss</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-05-14T10:16:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

