I don't think that's it, I think we're firmly in bug territory....OR...there is some backend cleanup that takes time to clear? I wiped the partition that was created as ID 0. Currently I have ID 1 and 2 that are both working as PBHA (no hosts, just volumes) One going CH -> CCC, the other CCC -> CH. Detail below:
CH View
id:name:preferred_management_system_name:active_management_system_name:replication_policy_id:replication_policy_name:location1_system_name:location1_status:lm_name:location2_status:host_count:volume_group_count:ha_status:link_status:desired_location_system_name:migration_status:draft:draft_volume_group_count:draf
1:partJoCoCH-AIX:JOCO_CH_FS7300:JOCO_CH_FS7300:2:ha-policy-2:JOCO_CH_FS7300:healthy:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:healthy:0:1:established:synchronized:::no:0:0
2:partJoCoCCC-VMWare:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:3:ha-policy-3:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:healthy:JOCO_CH_FS7300:healthy:0:1:established:synchronized:::no:0:0
CCC View
id:name:preferred_management_system_name:active_management_system_name:replication_policy_id:replication_policy_name:location1_system_name:location1_status:lm_name:location2_status:host_count:volume_group_count:ha_status:link_status:desired_location_system_name:migration_status:draft:draft_volume_group_count:draf
1:partJoCoCH-AIX:JOCO_CH_FS7300:JOCO_CH_FS7300:2:ha-policy-2:JOCO_CH_FS7300:healthy:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:healthy:0:1:established:synchronized:::no:0:0
2:partJoCoCCC-VMWare:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:3:ha-policy-3:JOCO_CCC_FS7300:healthy:JOCO_CH_FS7300:healthy:0:1:established:synchronized:::no:0:0
CH View
vgJIMS-cccVMWARE 7 partJoCoCCC-VMWare
vgJIMS-chVMWARE 30
vgJIMSchAIX 7 partJoCoCH-AIX
CCC View
vgJIMS-cccVMWARE 7 partJoCoCCC-VMWare
vgJIMSchAIX 7 partJoCoCH-AIX
I recreated the partition giving it the vgJIMS-chVMWARE Volume Group. The replication establishes, and shortly thereafter gives the same error and drops the replication into suspended state:
Event ID
051010
Event ID Text
A remote command failed during replicated storage partition configuration.
Sequence Number
258
Object Type
partition
Object ID
0
Object Name
partJoCoCH-VMWare
So the partition didn't exist, the VG only existed on the source side. It appears that it is creating the object on the destination and then erroring out saying it already exists.
I can get a ticket opened on this issue, but any help on my more procedural questions would be appreciated.
Thanks y'all.
------------------------------
Shaun Anderson
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Mon August 11, 2025 04:06 AM
From: Chris Bulmer
Subject: FlashGrid setup error
Hello Shaun,
The error is saying that partition ID 0 on the partner system has the same name as the partition it's currently trying to make HA with that system. Partition names (as well as hosts, volume groups, volumes and host clusters) need to be unique within a system. Rename the partition on either system to something else and mark the event as fixed and it will try again.
------------------------------
Chris Bulmer
Software architect, IBM Storage Virtualize
Original Message:
Sent: Fri August 08, 2025 09:12 AM
From: Shaun Anderson
Subject: FlashGrid setup error
Setting up a new FlashGrid and having some issues. The error is a bit ambiguous. I'm getting the error:
Message ID | CMMVC6035E |
---|
Error text | Replication configuration is blocked because the partner system already has an object of the same type and name as one being replicated. The type and name of the object are shown in table Details of remote command error |
---|
The detail of the error is here (Volume name obfuscated)
Partner system <Partnersystemname>
Error Object partition <PartitionName>
Command type Internal command run as part of creating a host
Other object ID in command 0
Message ID CMMVC6035E
This customer has two sites approx 7 miles apart and has dedicated dark fiber between sites, response times are solid. For a subset of their vmware hosts, they have volumes that are presented from Flashsystem A at Site A to Host A, but they also have volumes from FlashSystem B at Site B to Host A over the dark fiber. My assumption is that the Partition setup is erroring out because it sees the host definition for Host A at Site A, but on the Site B system. Thinking it was a naming conflict I changed the name of the Site B Hosts, but the error still persists. They are coming from a Hyperswap configuration which we will be doing an image-mode migration to this once the structure is setup and functional.
My assumption is that the host object itself is causing the problem regardless of naming. Is this a restriction of FlashGrid and Policy Based HA? I can't have the same host definition on both ends of the HA Pairing?
------------------------------
Shaun Anderson
------------------------------