UNSOLVED

Tru64GUY

updated

17 years ago

T

Tru64GUY

32 Posts

1

1818

September 2nd, 2009 08:00

Issues configuring SANCopy between CX-700(Flare 19) and CX4-480(Flare 28)

I am having issue configuring SANcopy between CX700(Flare 19) and CX4-480 (Flare 28). I am getting error "SPB:

The destination device could not be found. This is probably due to incorrect zoning on the switch or the device is not

the correct storage group.0x712a8021".

a quick description of the environment right now.


* Both CX700 and CX4-480 have SANCopy enabled and are in Multi-Domain Management .

* Both fabrics connected directly SP to SP -No Fiber Switch Zoning involved-.. CX700-A3 to CX4-480-A8 ,

CX700-B3 to CX4-480-B8.They both see each other on the connectivity status.

* I see all connections when I check SANCopy connection summary from any one of them.

* From the CX700, I can pick the CX4-480-SPa or CX4-480-SPb , when I right click on any storage group ,

SANCopy, connections. I don`t see the CX700-SPA or CX700-SPB when I do the same from any Storage group on

CX4-480. I only see CX4-480-SPB ports 0,1,2,3,7,8.

* When I tried to create ¿Full Copy¿ SANCopy session , I had no problem picking the source and destination LUNs

(Same Size LUNs, all on SPB on both Fabrics) but gave me error when clicked ¿Finish¿.

Any ideas what may be the problem.
  • kevcp

    6 Posts

    551

    0

    Posted September 2nd, 2009 09:00

    The first thing I see would be to up the FLARE on your CX-700 I am not sure of the latest FLARE for the CX-700 (we are running 02.24.700.5.016). I don't think EMC supports anything that is more than one rev below.. I had a similar issue going from an FC-4700 to CX3-80 but I was able to "push" the data from the FC-4700 to the CX3-80, the CX3-80 would not see the FC-4700 as an available storage system.
  • Tru64GUY

    32 Posts

    551

    0

    Posted September 2nd, 2009 10:00

    There is no zoning involved. I have CX700-A3 connected to CX4-480-A8 , CX700-B3 connected to CX4-480-B8. Is there any EMC Notes about the compatibility of SANCopy with different Flare revisions.
  • chiodp

    149 Posts

    551

    0

    Posted September 2nd, 2009 10:00

    If the zoning is correct the first step is to upgrade your CX700 to release 26 patch 26 .
    This will help to resolve any issue you can have with the compatibility ....
    Regards
    Pierluca
  • dynamox

    11 Legend

    •

    20419 Posts

    •

    87439 Points

    551

    0

    Posted September 2nd, 2009 10:00

    have you tried to create and start sessions from command line ?
  • dynamox

    11 Legend

    •

    20419 Posts

    •

    87439 Points

    551

    0

    Posted September 2nd, 2009 10:00

    i've SANCopy pushed from CX600 on flare 19 to CX4-120 no problem. It's something else ..
  • 551

    0

    Posted September 5th, 2009 17:00

    Pls. read the White Paper "MirrorView Knowledgebook: Flare 28 A Detailed Review". U can refer to page 24 / Table 7 for software version interoperability between primary and secondary images.

    It states that mirrorview imges on CX4(R28) are supported to/fro R23 for AX4-5 and R24 for CX series onwards. So, you will need to upgrade flare on CX700 to atleast R23 to be in preferred connectivity status.

    The document is available @ powerlink on

    Home > Products > Software E-O > MirrorView > White Papers
  • DGM3

    238 Posts

    551

    0

    Posted September 18th, 2009 13:00

    Array-to-array interoperability considerations for SAN Copy are not the same as for MirrorView. SAN Copy is a fairly general push or pull model controlled by one of the arrays in the session, whereas MirrorView is a much more tightly coupled co-operation between two arrays (hence, SAN Copy can be used between CLARiiON and non-CLARiiON arrays, whereas MirrorView is between CLARiiON arrays only). In any case, please be aware that the discussion about revision interoperability in the MirrorView Knowledgebook, is not directly applicable to SAN Copy configurations. If the original poster finds that further investigation is still needed (I realize this thread is now a couple weeks old) it would be best to directly open a support case.

    Regards,
    DGM