Creation of mirror in OCUM fails


A PS member here is struggling to finalize a OnCommand deployment on a 3270.

The Setup is VmWare at the branchoffice, Host package installed 1.1 creating daily snapvaults

to the central data center – Works fine, when the Snapvault arrives a snapmirror is initiated to create

a mirror of the snapvault on another NetApp Controller. In the Oncommand Policy it fails with the conformance

results below – IMHO max. Vol size is 70 TB but we cant find the setting to create a smaller Volsize during the creation

any Ideas ?

OCUM is 5.01 ...

Conformance Results

=== SEVERITY ===

Error:     Unable to provision flexible volume of size 78.4 TB. Error: vol create: Request to create volume 'MEX_MEXFILER001_MexData01_mirror_1' failed because the given volume size is greater than the maximum size. Select a size of at most 44.9TB for the new volume.

=== ACTION ===

Provision flexible volume (volume mirror destination) of size 78.4 TB

Creation of mirror in OCUM fails

got this input is that correct ?

dfm option set pmAutomaticSecondaryVolMaxSizeMb=XXXX

Re: Creation of mirror in OCUM fails

Hi Hansen,

There are two ways to solve this issue.  If you move to OCUm 5.1 or later where we do Dynamic Secondary Sizing and no aggr sized volume creation. Here we will only create the VSM destination volume with same size as the snapvault destination. There by solving the issue of not creating aggrsized volumes.

I strongly recommend you to upgrade to 5.1 or even 5.2RC1.

If you still wish to stay in 5.0.1 then you will have to set the value of dfm option set pmAutomaticSecondaryVolMaxSizeMb=47081062.4

But pls not this option is global and will apply to all volume provisioning and resizing. Thereby if a need for a volume creation or resize beyond 44.9 TB will fail.

This is not required and will not happen if you move 5.1/5.2RC.

Pls not to turn the option OFFyou will have to do the following

dfm option set pmAutomaticSecondaryVolMaxSizeMb=0



Re: Creation of mirror in OCUM fails

BTW you are hitting this known issue describe in Bugs online.

Can you pls create a case for the same and add it to the bug670808