Only seen this on SpycerBox TL, but could apply to other models.
Use more than one Fibre Channel port on the SpycerBox connected to a switch.
StorNext volume does not mount due to duplicate Stornext drive labels. This is normally seen immediately after StorNext upgraded from 4.x to 5.x.
The Duplicate StorNext label error can also be described as a given StorNext Label which are detected multiple times does not have the same serial number.
cvlabel -l to list all the LUNs, might also use
grep to see only the affected device in the error message. Excerpt below shows the same StorNext label with differing serial numbers.
/dev/sdc is from local RAID card.
/dev/sdba are from Fibre Channel interface.
sbtl_176167002_data_0 /dev/sdc 171861567455 EFI # host 0 lun 0 sectors 171861567455 sector_size 512 inquiry [ASR8160 176167002_data1 V1.0] serial 00000000000000000000000000000000 sbtl_176167002_data_0 /dev/sdbb 171861567455 EFI # host 2 lun 0 sectors 171861567455 sector_size 512 inquiry [SCST_BIO176167002_data1 301] serial 3539656162316133 sbtl_176167002_data_0 /dev/sdba 171861567455 EFI # host 3 lun 0 sectors 171861567455 sector_size 512 inquiry [SCST_BIO176167002_data1 301] serial 3539656162316133
There are multiple solutions:
- Use only one FC port on the SpycerBox.
- Change the /etc/opt/DVS/Spycerbox/FC_TargetPorts file to set the FC ports of the ATTO card to target mode only. More info here at this link:
- Rezone the Fibre Channel switch to one zone per SpycerBox FC port, in another word where multiple SpycerBox FC ports are never on the same zone.
The SpycerBox TL Fibre Channel ports are by setup by default as target and initiator modes, this would output and input LUNs, thus if multiple FC ports of the SpycerBox TL are in the same zone, the LUNs of one port will loop back to the other port and gets registered a serial number. This in itself is okay, but the SpycerBox TL also presents the same LUN locally from the RAID cards and this have the serial number of zeros.
StorNext previous to 5.x doesn't seem to care about this duplication, but StorNext 5.x has a tighter checking and therefor errors out.