Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions

reservation not working with certified command

francoisbnc
7,591 Views

In a workflow with two certified commands: remove volume (if exists) and clone volume.

Reservation works fine, I can run multiple times the workflow.

 

Hovewer if I force data source acquisition from dfm 5.2, cache updated come YES only for clone volume. That means the next workflow failed because  remove volume is disabled.

 

Why remove volume cache is not updated, that break the reservation process. I miss something?

 

Capture.PNG

 

Capture2.PNG

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

ag
NetApp
7,320 Views

We do have a bug filed for this and will work on it for the next release.

View solution in original post

16 REPLIES 16

shailaja
7,514 Views

Hi Francois,

 

Could you please look at this post and see if it helps in understanding this behavior:

http://community.netapp.com/t5/OnCommand-Storage-Management-Software-Discussions/WFA-issue-with-cache-updates/m-p/43293#M8897

 

Thanks,
Shailaja

francoisbnc
7,507 Views

Hello Shailaja,

Oh sorry, I totally miss the post of anil, it's more clear now.

But to solved this behavior, if I need to have remove volume and clone volume in the same workflow, how can i proceed.

Thing is, I want to have a refresh workflow that work in all cases even volume clone doesn't exit. Example, when workflow is executed the first time.

 

Regards,

François

francoisbnc
7,491 Views

Hello Shailaja,

I made some tests based on comments of anil and I remarqued that usage of remove volume and clone volume in separate workflows work fine. Even I acquire from DFM.

In this case that should be possible to make prioritization in reservation? depending on where commands are executed in workflow, from left to right and top to bottom.

 

François

abhit
7,390 Views

Hi Francois:

 

"In this case that should be possible to make prioritization in reservation?"

 

Can you please elaborate the question.


Regards

Abhi

francoisbnc
7,367 Views
Hello abhi,
In a workflow for example to recreate clean env from scratch. Delete volume and create volume are used, in this order. so in term of reservation, as create volume is executed after delete,a finder executed after must return that the volume exists. Even after cache updated from dfm or ovum.

Regards
Francois

abhit
7,333 Views

Hi Francois:

 

It is supposed to work the way you have mentioned.

 

Regards

Abhi

francoisbnc
7,302 Views
Hello Abhi,
Sorry I am lost. Anil said in previous post

"There are two conflicting reservations that are happening here. One reservation thinks "test_clone" volume does not exist(REMOVE VOLUME). The other reservation thinks "test_clone" volume exists and was newly created(CREATE CLONE)."
In my example we are exactly in the same conflicting situation after dfm acquire.
So what I have to do to have a refresh workflow that works in all situations.

Regards,
François

ag
NetApp
7,287 Views

Hi François,

 

I am afraid there is no straight workaround here.

There are two things you could do:

1. Manually remove the reservation for remove volume.

2. Use different volume names.

 

This is a very tricky situation and we have a lot of conflicting commands that can be put in a workflow.

ag
NetApp
7,321 Views

We do have a bug filed for this and will work on it for the next release.

francoisbnc
6,613 Views

Hello,

Is it fixed now in 3.0RC1?

Regards,

François

ag
NetApp
6,594 Views

Hi Franc,

 

It is not fixed in 3.0RC1.

Since it is a major fix, we are currently looking at the prospect of fixing it in future release.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Anil

rkiran
6,565 Views

Hi Franc,


As a workaround to the issue, you can try disabling the following in your workflow setup details (under Setup --> General tab):
1) Consider Reserved Elements and
2) Enable element existence validation

francoisbnc
6,560 Views

Hi rkiran,

If I need map a LUN from a cloned volume, reservation is mandatory. So I can disable it.

François

francoisbnc
6,491 Views

Hello,

I'am again faced to reservation problem with couple of vol clone and vol rename.

So i decided to totaly disable reservations, because they are not usable for me. It's a shame because that could be very helpfull.

When do you planned to have a look on that, I really need this problem fixed.

 

thanks

François

abhit
6,479 Views
Hi Francois: 
Thanks for your mail. Sorry to hear that.
He had a look at it and fixing it was not trivial.

The fix will require some re-design and will hence take some time to fix this issue. 

We will prioritize it and try to find a solution.
We will get back when we have one. 
Regards
Abhi

LUKASPRELOVSKY
4,040 Views

Hi,

 

what is the current status?

 

Br,

Lukas

Best Regards,
Lukas
Public