Forcing device names in hp-ux

[AdminSyS]

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 “/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

[Duncan Edmonstone]

>> 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

[AdminSyS]

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 â 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

[chris huys_4]

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