6.2 fixed all these issues, JFTR.

Alexander Griesser

Head of Systems Operations

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler

Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601

Von: Tim McCarthy <tmacmd@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2020 11:52
An: Alexander Griesser <AGriesser@anexia-it.com>; Toasters <toasters@teaparty.net>
Betreff: Re: Config Advisor 6.1 Misleading Information?

I found 6.x too buggy

Went back to 5.8.1

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Toasters <toasters-bounces@teaparty.net> on behalf of Alexander Griesser <AGriesser@anexia-it.com>
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 3:24:20 AM
To: Toasters <toasters@teaparty.net>
Subject: Config Advisor 6.1 Misleading Information?

Hey there,

we just deployed CA 6.1 and had it running against some of our clusters.

Some of the findings here are „interesting“, f.ex.:

Warning:

A minimum of 2 Cluster LIFs should be configured and active.

This storage appliance has 0 cluster LIFs defined but only 0 is active. Cluster Interconnect Bandwidth is compromised and cluster LIF redundancy is unavailable.

vs:

CLUSTER::> net int show -role cluster

(network interface show)

Logical Status Network Current Current Is

Vserver Interface Admin/Oper Address/Mask Node Port Home

----------- ---------- ---------- ------------------ ------------- ------- ----

Cluster

Node1_clus1 up/up 169.254.221.243/16 node1 e0a true

Node1_clus2 up/up 169.254.71.9/16 node1 e0b true

Node2_clus1

up/up 169.254.111.202/16 node2 e0a true

node2_clus2

up/up 169.254.213.249/16 node2 e0b true

4 entries were displayed.

What exactly is it checking here? Do I need to assign a new flag to those LIFs in order for CA to recognize them properly?

Informational:

Thin provisioning features are not enabled.

Thin Provisioning features are not enabled on following volumes: node1:node1_root Until "Volume Guarantees" are removed, thin provisioning is not enabled, therefore storage efficiency cannot be guaranteed.

Vs:

https://library.netapp.com/ecmdocs/ECMP1196981/html/GUID-38F008C4-3CAA-4C81-954D-C7B00EDC7A5D.html

„You should not use thin provisioning for root volumes.“

Informational:

The node is configured as a single node cluster and is not saving configuration backups remotely.

Single node cluster configurations should save backup configuration files remotely to allow for recovery in the event of a node/root volume failure. In the event of a node failure, the cluster configuration will not be able to be recovered.

Vs:

CLUSTER::> cluster show

Node Health Eligibility

--------------------- ------- ------------

Node1 true true

Node2 true true

2 entries were displayed.

-> It also failed to recognize a two-node cluster, is there a flag it checks which I missed to set?

Anyone else experiencing issues like these?

Thanks,