Luns visibility Issue

[Viveki]

Michael is correct .....

Checking the FW of the HBAs is required. But a few points

How many FC cards are used to access the storage (paths)? If you have 2 fc cards and both having the same issue, you need to look beyond the HBAs,

Check the HBA card details from fcmsutil output and update the FW accordingly. you can use the product number to search in Hp.com to get the part details and click on download drivers and softwares to down load the drivers. The product number can be obtained from the fcmsutil command output.

[Michael Steele_2]

It is not an FC card issue.

Tachyon TL Fibre Channel

the system or the card doesnt have any issues

[Prasanth V Aravind]

These are the luns we allocated from storage.

The storage documentation says that, Due to limitations in the host operating system, LUNs greater than x'3FFF' are not supported. When you create or assign LUNs and volumes, only LUN and volume IDs less than x'3FFF' are supported. This limits the maximum number of volumes that are allowed for HP host types to 16384.

Luns Allocated:-
108B,118B,10FB,11FB,6834,6934,6835,6935,6836,6936,6837,6937,6838,6938,6839,6939,683A,693A,683B,693B,683C,693C,683D,693D,683E,693E,683F,693F,6840,6940,6841,6941,6842,6942,6843,6943,6844,6944,6845,6945,6846,6946,6847,6947,6848,6948,6849,6949,684A,694A,684B,694B,684C,694C,684D,694D,684E,694E,684F,694F,108A,118A,10FA,11FA,6818,6918,6819,6919,681A,691A,681B,691B,681C,691C,681D,691D,681E,691E,681F,691F,6820,6920,6821,6921,6822,6922,6823,6923,6824,6924,6825,6925,6826,6926,6827,6927,6828,6928,6829,6929,682A,692A,682B,692B,682C,692C,682D,692D,682E,692E,682F,692F,6830,6930,6831,6931,6832,6932,6833,6933,66FF,67FF,6800,6900,6801,6901,6802,6902,6803,6903,6804,6904,6805,6905,6806,6906,6807,6907,6808,6908,6809,6909,680A,690A,680B,690B,680C,690C,680D,690D,680E,690E,680F,690F,6810,6910,6811,6911,6812,6912,6813,6913,6814,6914,6815,6915,6816,6916,6817,6917

Luns Visible:-
108B,118B,10FB,11FB,108A,118A,10FA,11FA,


Here we are able to see the luns with lun_ids < 3FFF.

any fix available for this ?

[Michael Steele_2]

Hi

"...The storage documentation says that, Due to limitations in the host operating system, LUNs greater than x'3FFF' are not supported..."

This is between IBM and HP and IBM states not supported. You'll have to verify with IBM as well as HP, but, start a Case with HP and get it documented. I'm sure they know about.

[Viveki]

Hi Prasanth,

You done a good job digging this out.

I dont think there is a fis avaialbel for this. You need to change the LUN numbers. If it is possible, need to recreated them with supported LUN Ids

[Prasanth V Aravind]

I had started a Case with HP. But i feel, i will get faster response form forum.

let hp to debugg on this further.

Thanks for your support & suggestions ... :)

[Suraj K Sankari]

Hi,

One thing you can try remove all lun's and recreate it and second try to assign into some different server then you came to knwo where will be the proble.

Suraj

[Viveki]

Or just create 2-3 test LUNs with supported IDs and check. If they are able to detect, the issue is confirmed

[Prasanth V Aravind]

I have allocated the same luns to another server & having same issue there also.

If i am allocating new luns with supported LUNID, it getting detect there.

Also i got the confirmation from HP team that, hpux have limitation of 16384 luns &

THERE IS NO FIX AVAILABLE for this..

[Duncan Edmonstone]

Prasanth,

Are you saying this one system has more than 16384 LUNs attached to it?

Or merely that the "LUN number" from the IBM DS8k is higher than 16384?

The reason I ask, was that I'm pretty sure the maximum number of attached LUNs for 11.11 was actually way below 16384, which makes me think what we are actually referring to here is the "LUN number" which is a function of the IBM system - on any other disk array its usually possible to restart LUN numbering on a per host basis - i.e. For each host the disk array restarts the LUN numbering back at zero - that's ceratinly possible with HP and EMC disk arrays - I can't speak for IBM ones though - never used them...

So if its just a "LUN numbering" issue and not a "total number of LUNs" issue, I'd go back to IBM and request an alternative solution (on the basis that their competitors disk arrays don't have this limitation)

HTH

Duncan