But even this is not completely correct. Since you were able to create metadevices on that disk when it was not part of the diskset. I am attaching your email to me regarding this, which I am including below.
To summerize I believe here's how things stand. 1. Without mpxio using the 64 byte vdp one can add disks into the diskset. 2. With mpxio enabled using the 64 byte vdp, adding that disk to the disk fails. 3. With mpxio enabled, one can create metadevices (stripe in the example below) on that disk with 64 byte vdp. 4. With 16 byte vdp, everything works fine, i.e. no failures are seen for the steps described above. -Sanjay > Sanjay, > did I understand you correctly? Do you mean to create a strip on the > "problematic" disk w/o creating the metaset? > I did it and it worked: > > Single: > # metainit d10 1 1 > c6t58495620202020204E4558545241202020202020313032353020202020202031d0s0 > d10: Concat/Stripe is setup > > Stripe: > # metainit d20 1 2 > c6t58495620202020204E4558545241202020202020313032353020202020202033d0s0 > c6t58495620202020204E4558545241202020202020313032353020202020202034d0s0 > d20: Concat/Stripe is setup > # metastat > d20: Concat/Stripe > Size: 491520 blocks (240 MB) > Stripe 0: (interlace: 1024 blocks) > Device > Start Block Dbase Reloc > > /dev/dsk/c6t58495620202020204E45585452412020202020203130323530202020202020 > 33d0s0 0 No Yes > > /dev/dsk/c6t58495620202020204E45585452412020202020203130323530202020202020 > 34d0s0 16384 No Yes > > d10: Concat/Stripe > Size: 33505280 blocks (15 GB) > Stripe 0: > Device > Start Block Dbase Reloc > > /dev/dsk/c6t58495620202020204E45585452412020202020203130323530202020202020 > 31d0s0 0 No Yes > > Device Relocation Information: > Device > Reloc Device ID > /dev/dsk/c6t58495620202020204E45585452412020202020203130323530202020202020 > 33d0 Yes id1,ssd at TXIV_____NEXTRA______10250______3 > /dev/dsk/c6t58495620202020204E45585452412020202020203130323530202020202020 > 34d0 Yes id1,ssd at TXIV_____NEXTRA______10250______4 > /dev/dsk/c6t58495620202020204E45585452412020202020203130323530202020202020 > 31d0 Yes id1,ssd at TXIV_____NEXTRA______10250______1 > > Regards, > -- Leon > > Leon Koll wrote: > Hi Tom, > do you work with device names long like this one: > /dev/dsk/c6t<64bytes>d0s0 > What I see that SVM has problems with them. > > -- Leon > > > On 1/25/06, Tom Whitten <thomas.whitten at sun.com> wrote: > >>You're URL says "When the MPxIO is enabled, the SVM cannot work with disks >>with long device names (64 bytes target name length)." We do, however, >>have SVM running with MPXIO and long device names. Can you provide more >>details? >> >>tom >> >>Leon Koll writes: >> >>>[i][b]I found the problem!!![/b][/i] >>>Looks like a bug in SVM. >>>Read here: http://napobo3.blogspot.com/2006/01/i-found-problem.html >>>This message posted from opensolaris.org >>>_______________________________________________ >>>lvm-discuss mailing list >>>lvm-discuss at opensolaris.org >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>lvm-discuss mailing list >>lvm-discuss at opensolaris.org
