Subscribe
Accepted Solution

Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

Hi

After running HA config checker, we got this message.

"Interface sm-storage91 (sm-storage91) reffered by filer2 for failover is missing on filer1"

I look interface configuration under the Partner Interface (see attached diagram), and I believe it is supposed to choose sm-storage-91 (10.x.x.11) instead of sm-storage91. There is a missing 'dash'

Where are the options in the drop-down list getting pulled from? from the host file? How do I receive the error? Do I change here first in the interface configuration and then change the /etc/rc file also?

Weird thing is, we were able to perform takeover/giveback before without any issue.

Thanks,

Maico

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

The download page says that it looks for a partner parameter in the rc file "Checks /etc/rc on each storage controller to see that all interfaces have a failover set" ... although I wouldn't trust that alone since it doesn't mean someone ran an ifconfig to remove that parameter after boot (or maybe rc was edited after)... I check the rc file for partner and also ifconfig to make sure it is set as per listed in rc.  Does your rc file have a partner parameter on sm-storage-91?

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

If I understand what you are asking.. and if this a 7mode machine (Assume it is since you are talking takeover/giveback)and you are hitting it with System Manger I would start there as an issue. When reading rc files with the gui we have had nothing but trouble... more accurately said writing and reading has been an issue.  Anyway, if you look at the files directly and compare that to an ifconfig -a at the console do things match that way? If they match are they correct or are they both wrong?

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

Hi Scott,

Here is the rc entry in filer2

ifconfig sm-storage-91 `hostname`-sm-storage-91 netmask 255.255.255.0 partner sm-storage91 mtusize 9000 trusted -wins

Here is the host entry in filer 2 (you can see that it is different from what shows above. Also in the diagram I added in my other post, the second option in the dropdown list is the oen showing the right name of the interface)

10.x.x.11 filer1-sm-storage-91

Here is the rc entry in filer 1

ifconfig sm-storage-91 `hostname`-sm-storage-91 netmask 255.255.255.0 partner sm-storage-91 mtusize 9000 trusted -wins

Maico

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

Hi joker,

Here is the output in filer2 in regards to the interface. They don’t match to what I have in the host file.

sm-storage-91: flags=0x6b4c863<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,TCPCKSUM,NOWINS> mtu 9000

        inet 10.x.x.21 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.x.x.255

        partner sm-storage91 (not in use)

        ether xx:xx:xx:xx:25:f6 (Enabled interface groups

Maico

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

This looks ok…as long as “ifconfig sm-storage-91” shows the partner interface is set. I wonder if the ha config has an issue when “partner” is not at the end of the line.

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

Was a manual ifconfig or system manager used to change the networking?  Like joker_morgan said there have been some issues with System Manager and networking issues when making changes.

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

Yes it is set in ifconfig but on the gui, when I look at the drop-down list it seems like the second one is the correct one to choose.

However, I am not sure if I should change on the ifconfig or on rc file or both.

Maico

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

we have also had issue where the name gets too long. for example we would name our grp FL1-IFG1 and then when the vlan would get added it would end up FL1-IFG1-(vlan Number) and this caused issues being read correctly. We ended up with much shorter names.  This was back on 8.0.1 but thought I would throw it out there.

Re: Where is the partner interface options getting pulled from?

This was configured by a third-party. I believe they configured this manually via script, therefore subject to typo.

Maico