+--- In a previous state of mind, "Keith Brown" keith@netapp.com wrote: | | >or can I tag | >the failover loops as having a lower priority than the "local" loops? | | What exactly do you mean by "local loops"? If by "local loops" you mean FCAL | loops that are private to an individual filer within the cluster, then I'm | not entirely sure that we support that type of configuration anyway. In a
Ok, let me try and explain what I meant. Each filer would be primary to a disk array and secondary to another. Now, in failover a filer would become primary for both sets A & B where A is its primary. Can I tell this filer that requests for the B (secondary) array are to receive less priority than requests to A?
The reason I ask is that, in my case, the data on one array will be more important than the other. Lets say a /usr/local export vs the html content being served (or the user mail spool or financial data, etc). To me the /usr/local data is less critical than the other stuff, so I would rather the filer limit how much time/resources it spends servicing these requests.
Think of it as tagging the data with quality of service parameters.
| below). Just from the quantity perspective, the only filers that can or will | be able to receive a third FCAL loop are the F630 and F760 units, so this | discussion is somewhat moot in the context of an F740.
Well, not quite moot. I have a 740 today but will be buying 3 760's next year to put in a CF configuration. I want to know what my options are going to be... :)
| gross in the whole cluster), but F700 series clustering for the F740 and | F760 systems is not yet shipping. Patience... :-)
Hey, I just want it to work when I get it. Some of the more recent problems I have encountered are not things I would like to have happen in a CF setup.
| thing...) but I guess it does get kinda interesting when you've got three | loops to worry about. I'll have to leave this one to someone at NetApp who | knows exactly how we recommend this work physically.
Very good.
| >Actually, why the decision to use copper instead of fiber? | | I think the reasons were plentyfold. Affordabality was certainly in the mix.
Fiber certainly is not the cheapest thing in the world. I was just curious if the decision was akin to cisco pushing cddi as an alternative to fddi interfaces.
Thank you for the quick and verbose (which is good!) responses on these issues.
Alexei