<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts in Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/116243#M20666</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Matthias,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We now have a patch that should allow OCI to better understand this topology.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Bryan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:52:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>hoffman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-02-24T13:52:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115294#M20475</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello together,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Today we saw a lot of servers, which were marked as "blocked host" which means that they are zoned but have not mapped any storage.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When we investigated this, we saw that the servers have mapped storage. The cause is, that OCI mapps the server to the partner site in the MCC and not to the running instance of the SVM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this a known issue?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regs&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Matthias&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 22:11:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115294#M20475</guid>
      <dc:creator>matthias_beck</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T22:11:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115295#M20476</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hey Matthias,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What protocol are these hosts using to access the MCC? I am not aware of any particular issue here.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Matt&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:25:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115295#M20476</guid>
      <dc:creator>ostiguy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-02T14:25:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115296#M20477</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Matt,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are using FCP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The LIFs on both sites have the same WWPNs but the LIFs on the standby site are down. OCI seems to use the standby site for checking SAN paths.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regs&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Matthias&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:34:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115296#M20477</guid>
      <dc:creator>matthias_beck</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-02T14:34:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115347#M20481</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Matthias,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do the LIFS have different WWNNs? OCI uses the node WWN for a fair amount of its logic, so that might be what's behind this one.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Bryan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:03:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115347#M20481</guid>
      <dc:creator>hoffman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-03T10:03:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115349#M20482</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Brian,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;No, because of the MCC, the LIFs of the standby SVM has the same WWPNs as the original one. The LIFs of the standby SVM are offline and will be onlined with a metrocluster switchover only.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regs&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Matthias&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:13:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/115349#M20482</guid>
      <dc:creator>matthias_beck</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-03T10:13:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/116203#M20663</link>
      <description>Hey Matthias, We are going to look at MCC aka cDOT MetroCluster WWNN / WWPN issues as a bug. We are currently working out some raw capacity double counting issues in MCC, and once that is solved we will address this issue Matt</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:38:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/116203#M20663</guid>
      <dc:creator>ostiguy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-23T15:38:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: OCI 7.1.1 cDOT SVM relationship to hosts</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/116243#M20666</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Matthias,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We now have a patch that should allow OCI to better understand this topology.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Bryan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:52:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OCI-7-1-1-cDOT-SVM-relationship-to-hosts/m-p/116243#M20666</guid>
      <dc:creator>hoffman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-24T13:52:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

