- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Forcing device names in hp-ux
Operating System - HP-UX
1752224
Members
5480
Online
108785
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-12-2010 10:16 PM
тАО09-12-2010 10:16 PM
Forcing device names in hp-ux
We are now in the middle of the process to build new device files names for one of our HP-UX clusters (HP-UX B.11.23 U ia64 with service-guard A.11.16.00)
We would like to force the passive node device names to be identical as the primary one, anyone has a procedure or idea of how to do so? I already tried the bellow and it didnt help:
1. Crate iofile from node you want to copy
a. ioscan -fnC ext_bus | egrep -v "H/W|==" | awk '{print $3,$1,$2}' > iofile2
2. Remove hardware paths.
a. for i in `ioscan -funCdisk | grep EMC |awk '{print $3}'`;do rmsf -H $i;done
3. RCP iofile2 to node you want to rebuild
4. Edit iofile2 and remove all non-devices EX: /dev/mpt2
5. Run тАЬ/sbin/ioinit -f /root/iofile2 -r #System will reboot if it takes
I also tried to reboot without fiber cables and run ioinit -c then the procedure above and it didnt succeed
We would like to force the passive node device names to be identical as the primary one, anyone has a procedure or idea of how to do so? I already tried the bellow and it didnt help:
1. Crate iofile from node you want to copy
a. ioscan -fnC ext_bus | egrep -v "H/W|==" | awk '{print $3,$1,$2}' > iofile2
2. Remove hardware paths.
a. for i in `ioscan -funCdisk | grep EMC |awk '{print $3}'`;do rmsf -H $i;done
3. RCP iofile2 to node you want to rebuild
4. Edit iofile2 and remove all non-devices EX: /dev/mpt2
5. Run тАЬ/sbin/ioinit -f /root/iofile2 -r #System will reboot if it takes
I also tried to reboot without fiber cables and run ioinit -c then the procedure above and it didnt succeed
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-12-2010 10:41 PM
тАО09-12-2010 10:41 PM
Re: Forcing device names in hp-ux
>> service-guard A.11.16.00
any reason you are using such an old version?
>> We would like to force the passive node device names to be identical as the primary one
Why? You do know Serviceguard won't care if they are different don't you? Or is this just for "convenience and ease of management"? (even then new devices added in the future may not match)...
>> I already tried the bellow and it didnt help
Well what _did_ happen, if anything? you've got to give us a clue here!
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
any reason you are using such an old version?
>> We would like to force the passive node device names to be identical as the primary one
Why? You do know Serviceguard won't care if they are different don't you? Or is this just for "convenience and ease of management"? (even then new devices added in the future may not match)...
>> I already tried the bellow and it didnt help
Well what _did_ happen, if anything? you've got to give us a clue here!
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-12-2010 11:02 PM
тАО09-12-2010 11:02 PM
Re: Forcing device names in hp-ux
At my company we are obligated to work copy exactly so I have to stay on my current SG version.
The reason we prefer to have them identical is for better management and convinient, I think I read somewhere that HP also reccomend both nodes device name to be the same, unless I'm wrong here? Is there any formal HP reccomendations for this? I understand from your answer that it shouldnt matter as long as SG is configured correctly for the Lock PV disk name which will be different on both nodes
As for the tech side, after trying the procedure I wrote the passive node still insist to stay with his new device names. See bellow the output I got:
# /sbin/ioinit -f /root/iofile4_new -r
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 5: 0/2/1/1.158.4.0.0 ext_bus 25
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 7: 0/2/1/1.158.12.0.0 ext_bus 27
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 9: 0/5/1/0.157.4.0.0 ext_bus 29
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 11: 0/5/1/0.157.12.0.0 ext_bus 31
ioinit: Instance number 36 already exists for class ext_bus.
Line 1. 0/2/1/0.20.24.0.0 ext_bus 36
Bellow is the output of the iofiles on both systems ├в I would like to copy the file from DB3 to DB4 (DB4 is the passive node)
root@f28ixdb4 [/root]
# cat iofile4_new1
0/0/3/0.0 ext_bus 0
0/0/3/0.1 ext_bus 1
0/1/1/0 ext_bus 2
0/1/1/1 ext_bus 3
0/2/1/0.20.24.0.0 ext_bus 48
0/2/1/0.20.24.255.0 ext_bus 49
0/2/1/0.20.72.0.0 ext_bus 50
0/2/1/0.20.72.255.0 ext_bus 51
0/2/1/1.158.4.0.0 ext_bus 25
0/2/1/1.158.4.255.0 ext_bus 9
0/2/1/1.158.12.0.0 ext_bus 27
0/2/1/1.158.12.255.0 ext_bus 11
0/5/1/0.157.4.0.0 ext_bus 29
0/5/1/0.157.4.255.0 ext_bus 13
0/5/1/0.157.12.0.0 ext_bus 31
0/5/1/0.157.12.255.0 ext_bus 15
0/5/1/1.30.20.0.0 ext_bus 36
0/5/1/1.30.20.255.0 ext_bus 37
0/5/1/1.30.24.0.0 ext_bus 38
0/5/1/1.30.24.255.0 ext_bus 39
0/5/1/1.30.28.0.0 ext_bus 40
0/5/1/1.30.28.255.0 ext_bus 41
0/5/1/1.30.68.0.0 ext_bus 42
0/5/1/1.30.68.255.0 ext_bus 43
0/5/1/1.30.72.0.0 ext_bus 44
0/5/1/1.30.72.255.0 ext_bus 45
0/5/1/1.30.76.0.0 ext_bus 46
0/5/1/1.30.76.255.0 ext_bus 47
root@f28ixdb3 [/root]
# cat iofile3
0/2/1/0.20.24.0.0 ext_bus 36
0/2/1/0.20.24.255.0 ext_bus 37
0/2/1/0.20.72.0.0 ext_bus 38
0/2/1/0.20.72.255.0 ext_bus 39
0/2/1/1.158.4.0.0 ext_bus 25
0/2/1/1.158.4.255.0 ext_bus 13
0/2/1/1.158.12.0.0 ext_bus 27
0/2/1/1.158.12.255.0 ext_bus 15
0/5/1/0.157.4.0.0 ext_bus 29
0/5/1/0.157.4.255.0 ext_bus 9
0/5/1/0.157.12.0.0 ext_bus 31
0/5/1/0.157.12.255.0 ext_bus 11
0/5/1/1.30.24.0.0 ext_bus 40
0/5/1/1.30.24.255.0 ext_bus 41
0/5/1/1.30.72.0.0 ext_bus 42
0/5/1/1.30.72.255.0 ext_bus 43
The reason we prefer to have them identical is for better management and convinient, I think I read somewhere that HP also reccomend both nodes device name to be the same, unless I'm wrong here? Is there any formal HP reccomendations for this? I understand from your answer that it shouldnt matter as long as SG is configured correctly for the Lock PV disk name which will be different on both nodes
As for the tech side, after trying the procedure I wrote the passive node still insist to stay with his new device names. See bellow the output I got:
# /sbin/ioinit -f /root/iofile4_new -r
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 5: 0/2/1/1.158.4.0.0 ext_bus 25
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 7: 0/2/1/1.158.12.0.0 ext_bus 27
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 9: 0/5/1/0.157.4.0.0 ext_bus 29
ioinit: Input is identical to kernel, line ignored
Input line 11: 0/5/1/0.157.12.0.0 ext_bus 31
ioinit: Instance number 36 already exists for class ext_bus.
Line 1. 0/2/1/0.20.24.0.0 ext_bus 36
Bellow is the output of the iofiles on both systems ├в I would like to copy the file from DB3 to DB4 (DB4 is the passive node)
root@f28ixdb4 [/root]
# cat iofile4_new1
0/0/3/0.0 ext_bus 0
0/0/3/0.1 ext_bus 1
0/1/1/0 ext_bus 2
0/1/1/1 ext_bus 3
0/2/1/0.20.24.0.0 ext_bus 48
0/2/1/0.20.24.255.0 ext_bus 49
0/2/1/0.20.72.0.0 ext_bus 50
0/2/1/0.20.72.255.0 ext_bus 51
0/2/1/1.158.4.0.0 ext_bus 25
0/2/1/1.158.4.255.0 ext_bus 9
0/2/1/1.158.12.0.0 ext_bus 27
0/2/1/1.158.12.255.0 ext_bus 11
0/5/1/0.157.4.0.0 ext_bus 29
0/5/1/0.157.4.255.0 ext_bus 13
0/5/1/0.157.12.0.0 ext_bus 31
0/5/1/0.157.12.255.0 ext_bus 15
0/5/1/1.30.20.0.0 ext_bus 36
0/5/1/1.30.20.255.0 ext_bus 37
0/5/1/1.30.24.0.0 ext_bus 38
0/5/1/1.30.24.255.0 ext_bus 39
0/5/1/1.30.28.0.0 ext_bus 40
0/5/1/1.30.28.255.0 ext_bus 41
0/5/1/1.30.68.0.0 ext_bus 42
0/5/1/1.30.68.255.0 ext_bus 43
0/5/1/1.30.72.0.0 ext_bus 44
0/5/1/1.30.72.255.0 ext_bus 45
0/5/1/1.30.76.0.0 ext_bus 46
0/5/1/1.30.76.255.0 ext_bus 47
root@f28ixdb3 [/root]
# cat iofile3
0/2/1/0.20.24.0.0 ext_bus 36
0/2/1/0.20.24.255.0 ext_bus 37
0/2/1/0.20.72.0.0 ext_bus 38
0/2/1/0.20.72.255.0 ext_bus 39
0/2/1/1.158.4.0.0 ext_bus 25
0/2/1/1.158.4.255.0 ext_bus 13
0/2/1/1.158.12.0.0 ext_bus 27
0/2/1/1.158.12.255.0 ext_bus 15
0/5/1/0.157.4.0.0 ext_bus 29
0/5/1/0.157.4.255.0 ext_bus 9
0/5/1/0.157.12.0.0 ext_bus 31
0/5/1/0.157.12.255.0 ext_bus 11
0/5/1/1.30.24.0.0 ext_bus 40
0/5/1/1.30.24.255.0 ext_bus 41
0/5/1/1.30.72.0.0 ext_bus 42
0/5/1/1.30.72.255.0 ext_bus 43
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО09-12-2010 11:58 PM
тАО09-12-2010 11:58 PM
Re: Forcing device names in hp-ux
Hi,
> I think I read somewhere that HP also
> reccomend both nodes device name to be the
> same, unless I'm wrong here?
Yes, you should be wrong. ;)
The reasoning goes that
1. The HP-UX OS doesnt care about different device files for a particular lun, so the system admins should be able to cope with it.
2. If the system admins, are able to correctly and fast "track back" the different device files to a physical lun, the system admins will be able to check if f.e. a "vgimport -s" has worked as "they expected during preparation", and in general will be "better" to prepare changes upfront, which will result in less "errors" at execution of the prepared procedures.
Greetz,
Chris
> I think I read somewhere that HP also
> reccomend both nodes device name to be the
> same, unless I'm wrong here?
Yes, you should be wrong. ;)
The reasoning goes that
1. The HP-UX OS doesnt care about different device files for a particular lun, so the system admins should be able to cope with it.
2. If the system admins, are able to correctly and fast "track back" the different device files to a physical lun, the system admins will be able to check if f.e. a "vgimport -s" has worked as "they expected during preparation", and in general will be "better" to prepare changes upfront, which will result in less "errors" at execution of the prepared procedures.
Greetz,
Chris
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP