Is a masked device always mapped?

i would say not possible, but may be some one having a test env can confirm.

`symaccess list view ` will not return device information w/o -detail  ,  or `symsg list -v `

all the listed devices would be mapped and masked due to autoprovisioning

even on VMAX you can have device that are mapped but not masked, there is nothing stopping you from mapping devices the old way (map dev to dir blah:blah) and not masking them. Same way you can unmap devices without unmasking them, why would somebody do that i don't know ..but it's possible

Thanks SKT and dynamox.

So I guess we would have to assume that though in normal scenarios this won't happen but its technically possible to have masked devices which are not mapped.

That means the command "symaccess list view -v " can possibly return devices which are masked but need not be always mapped. So if we have to find out list of FBA devices which are mapped but not masked, would the below commands be correct?

1. symdev" + " -sid " + strSymId + " -emul FBA -noport list

--to give me all list of devices which are not-mapped, ones which are not in above list give me mapped list.

2. symaccess -sid list view -v detail

-- gives me all  masked ones.

So ones which are NOT in o/p of command 1 and 2 would be my list of mapped but not masked devices.

i think it would be easier to list devices that are mapped but not masked as that is more likely to happen (somebody removed devices from storage group and did not use -unmap parameter) vs somebody going in and intentionally unmapping devices using symconfigure.

symaccess -sid list no_assignment

Thanks. Yes infact we have been using that command. But what we have noticed is, if a device is mapped to two ports, and is masked for one of them and not for other, then it returns this device name as not masked for that port in o/p of "symaccess -sid list no_assignment". This makes it difficult to identify if the device is not masked without having knowledge about its mapping info (device+port).

Since the commands which I listed earlier are already being fired, thought we can reuse that data. If we do, do you think the results would be right or do you see any loophole there?

Devices which are mapped but not masked.

are you trying to find devices that are mapped but not masked or masked devices that are not mapped ?

So for this the best way as dynamox said...

symmaskdb -sid 3889 -dir all -port all list no_assignment

symaccess -sid 1735 list no_assignment

naren23-3.uew wrote: Thanks. Yes infact we have been using that command. But what we have noticed is, if a device is mapped to two ports, and is masked for one of them and not for other, then it returns this device name as not masked for that port in o/p of "symaccess -sid list no_assignment". This makes it difficult to identify if the device is not masked without having knowledge about its mapping info (device+port).

well, look at it as a positive thing, this gives you an opportunity to fix devices that are not masked correctly

Thanks:-)

symmaskdb -sid xxxx -dir all -port all list no_assignment will give u the required output .I recently performed this activity in our box .