This post is more than 5 years old
32 Posts
0
1900
Open Replicator sessions
hi,
I am trying to implement Open replicator for migrating data from an older symm to new DMX. I have few questions regarding the sessions.
if i use the following comman to create a new session
#symrcopy create ¿name test_session -copy -push -hot -file test_file
and test_file contains 10 device pairs
now the question is how many sessions are created 1 or 10 (as i have read in the manual that one session is created per device pair). ??????
if 10 sessions are created do they all have the same session name.??????
how do i control each device pair individually if all have same session name???
if it creates only one session, is there a limit on the number of device pairs in a session????
thanks
Karan
I am trying to implement Open replicator for migrating data from an older symm to new DMX. I have few questions regarding the sessions.
if i use the following comman to create a new session
#symrcopy create ¿name test_session -copy -push -hot -file test_file
and test_file contains 10 device pairs
now the question is how many sessions are created 1 or 10 (as i have read in the manual that one session is created per device pair). ??????
if 10 sessions are created do they all have the same session name.??????
how do i control each device pair individually if all have same session name???
if it creates only one session, is there a limit on the number of device pairs in a session????
thanks
Karan
RRR
1 Rookie
1 Rookie
•
5.7K Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 01:00
I'd recommend reading the manual for OR about this.
Home > Support > Technical Documentation and Advisories > Software ~ J-O ~ Documentation > Open Replicator for Symmetrix
RRR
1 Rookie
1 Rookie
•
5.7K Posts
0
April 7th, 2008 00:00
The 512 is the value for the latest (and greatest) OR. the one I used about one and a half year ago only supported 128 device pairs.... (version 6.2 if I remember correctly).
karan2
32 Posts
0
April 7th, 2008 05:00
so if i have a Meta of 4 meta members(8 GB each) at the control side and a Meta of 2 meta members (16 GB each)on the remote side, then this would be counted as a 1 of 512 device pair limit. Did i get it right????
Karan
bodnarg
385 Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 05:00
The EMC PS team involved has commented that the newer versions of OR are a lot more robust and stable than it was just a year or so ago. Originally they were not recommending it, but as I mentioned our options were more limited with the LUN size change.
bodnarg
385 Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 05:00
In fact that is the whole reason we are using OR because SRDF requires you to go like-to-like since it is copying at the symdev level where OR looks at the device as a whole LUN.
In our case we are going from 7GB hypers to 16GB hypers so for the most part all of our metas have less than half of the devices of the source.
Knock-on-wood the process has worked nicely though I think it is more labor intensive than doing an SRDF configuration...
RRR
1 Rookie
1 Rookie
•
5.7K Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 05:00
The one problem I faced a lot was that the recreate failed from time to time and the only way to solve this was to release the lock 9's, terminate the session and restart that partucular session from the beginning.
karan2
32 Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 05:00
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 06:00
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 06:00
sessions to migrate a lot of our Windows fleet and
you definitely can do mismatched meta-sizes as long
hypers so for the most part all of our metas have
less than half of the devices of the source.
so as long as the target meta device is the same size as the source meta device regardless of underlying hyper size ..it's ok ?
RRR
1 Rookie
1 Rookie
•
5.7K Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 06:00
My migration was almost 2 years ago with OR 6.2 or something. Enginuity code was 71.something (we had to move from 70 to 71 for this, they said).
Another issue we were seeing was that with AIX hosts that used SRDF, whenever we started an OR session, SRDF and Or seemed to fight for control over the control devices and the AIX lost connectivity to the lun's. We had to use cold push for those hosts (cold means create BCV's from the control deviices and have OR replicate these BCV's as soon as they are split from their sources).
bodnarg
385 Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 06:00
In our case we did not use OR because the Unix team was comfortable using VG commands to either mirror or move things within the VG which meant no outages for them. With OR you'd have at least a short outage for a "hot" copy or a longer outage for a "cold" copy which they did not want to take.
For Windows 2003 you just run diskpart and expand the volume into the space. There are a few caveats - you can't expand boot or pagefile volumes and you can only expand a single volume within a partition (i.e. more than 1 partition in a volume does not work) but otherwise it is pretty painless.
For *nix it totally depends on the specific OS, but most of the big ones like AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc. have support at their latest releases to expand a LUN dynamically. You have a better change of the VG settings causing you problem...
bodnarg
385 Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 06:00
We've used the later to grow a few volumes in the process of the migration which has been one of the few benefits we have provided to our support teams for all of the work they have had to do
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
April 8th, 2008 07:00
john1214
44 Posts
0
January 23rd, 2011 08:00
If a session has 10 device pairs and if we want to control a device pair, how do we do that? Like if I want to terminate or re-activate a single device pair in a given session of 10 device pairs.