CASTalk.com

Hello,

Navisphere is showing a hosts as unmanaged due to host agent not
reacheable. For some odd reason, the host agent seems to be resolving
incorrectly. The hosts in the navisphere is referring to the private IP
address on the host. That should have been the public address. Since
private IP is only used as heartbeat adapter (cluster) for the hosts.
At the hosts, nslookup is resolving it correctly to the public IP. Yet,
when I ping the hosts locally it is pinging the private IP. This host
is part of a two node cluster and the other node seems to be fine.
Register this connection's address in DNS is "uncheck" on the private
adapter.

Has anyone encountered this type of problem before?

The storage im using is CX600.

If you know of any other good usenet groups that talks about EMC CX
series, please let me know.

Thank you much,
Gabriel

Do you have two network cards in your host?

Yes. There are two network cards. One is used primarily for heartbeat
on a cluster and the other adapter is for any other communcation.

Thanks,
Gabriel

That is a known bug with the navisphere agent. Just go to
powerlink.emc.com and search the knowledge base and you will find the
fix.

Gabriel,
Do you have the desired host and IP set in agendid.txt? Most of my
problems like this come from not having agentid.txt or agent.config
setup properly.

gtan168 wrote:

Hello,

Navisphere is showing a hosts as unmanaged due to host agent not
reacheable. For some odd reason, the host agent seems to be resolving
incorrectly. The hosts in the navisphere is referring to the private IP
address on the host. That should have been the public address. Since
private IP is only used as heartbeat adapter (cluster) for the hosts.
At the hosts, nslookup is resolving it correctly to the public IP. Yet,
when I ping the hosts locally it is pinging the private IP. This host
is part of a two node cluster and the other node seems to be fine.
Register this connection's address in DNS is "uncheck" on the private
adapter.

Has anyone encountered this type of problem before?

The storage im using is CX600.

If you know of any other good usenet groups that talks about EMC CX
series, please let me know.

Hello,

Create a .txt file in the Navisphere Agent directory and name it
agentid.txt. In the file on the first line, type the fully qualified
domain name of the host that you want to display in Navisphere. On the
second line, type the IP address that you want to display in
Navisphere. Save the file and then stop and start the Agent.

--
Kind Regards,
Kristjan

From what I know, SANs require the very expensive (not-mass-market-at-all)
hardware, hard-to-deal-with optical cables (limits on bend radius, hardships in
attaching connectors), and hard-to-manage software.

Then the question: is is practical to use SANs in small networks with, say,
~50 desktops and several servers? For such amount of computers, the reliability
of mass-market hardware is more or less enough, given its failure rates. You
will not lose much time or money on replacing the failed parts, and the money
loss on this - in the organization of such a size - can be smaller then moving
to expensive RAID boxes (like HP EVA or such), SCSI drives, SANs etc.

What advantages can SAN bring to the business of such a size?

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

"Maxim S. Shatskih" <maxim@storagecraft.com> writes:

From what I know, SANs require the very expensive
(not-mass-market-at-all) hardware, hard-to-deal-with optical cables
(limits on bend radius, hardships in attaching connectors), and
hard-to-manage software.

You can build a SAN with iSCSI, if you'd prefer. It won't have the
same performance as Fibrechannel, but for many environments that's
fine.

Then the question: is is practical to use SANs in small networks
with, say, ~50 desktops and several servers?

Well, what problem are you trying to solve?

There are a lot of video editing environments, for instance, that use
SANs on even smaller networks, perhaps with only a handful of systems.
For instance, there may be a digitizing system, some systems for
online editing, and some systems for rendering, sharing the storage.
In this environment, the SAN allows users to easily pass work from one
station to another, and to have a single, backed-up, large pool of
storage.

-- Anton

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:55:27 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:

From what I know, SANs require the very expensive (not-mass-market-at-all)
hardware, hard-to-deal-with optical cables (limits on bend radius, hardships in
attaching connectors), and hard-to-manage software.

Then the question: is is practical to use SANs in small networks with, say,
~50 desktops and several servers? For such amount of computers, the reliability
of mass-market hardware is more or less enough, given its failure rates. You
will not lose much time or money on replacing the failed parts, and the money
loss on this - in the organization of such a size - can be smaller then moving
to expensive RAID boxes (like HP EVA or such), SCSI drives, SANs etc.

What advantages can SAN bring to the business of such a size?

Flexibility.
For the most part, SAN is just DAS with some
bells/whistles/options. Flexibility is what those represent.

If you find you're utilization is highy varied across hosts, a SAN
will help. If you find you need host/application based failover, a
SAN can help.

If you find you need pure, raw performance, DAS is still the winner.

If you need multi-client access then NAS would likely be your
solution, though opinions on that vary like the color spectrum.

So, as usual, it all depends on what the problem is. But the size of
the environment is usually not the issue these days. Entry level
SAN's can be had for a pittance compared to 3 years ago. And even the
smallest environments sometimes benefit from the flexibility a SAN can
provide.

~F