I retract my earlier statement. I've had an avalance of mail explaining to me how the active-active FCAL setup works, and it's not what I'd envisioned earlier. It's much cooler. When I'm sure I understand it, and my toasters mailing privaleges are returned, I'll try to answer this question again.
* It was Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:49:00AM -0700 when Sam Rafter wrote:
- It was Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:32:24PM +0100 when Chris Thompson wrote:
jkrueger@qualcomm.com (Jeffrey Krueger) writes
We're not actively using it, but we tested it. It was pretty darn slick! Its kinda bizarre though because "vol status -r" output shows alternating disks on alternating adapters - until you failover to one or the other, then they all show disk id's on the active adapter. A load balancing strategy I assume, but it made us double take when looking at the output! =)
At one time this would have got people talking about "the performance penalty of writing to discs on more than one FCAL controller", wouldn't it? But presuambly not now that Sam Rafter set us straight on the subject in his toasters posting of 12 Jan 2001... or could the scenario of burt 19290 ever apply in the context of "redundant FCALs"?
When the second FCAL loop is in hot standby mode, or whatever term we've given it, it's generating no appreciable amount of traffic, so 19290 isn't a threat. Also, if this is an f800, it's not an issue at all. We revisited that bus design.
-- Sam Rafter Escalations Jerk Network Appliance rafter@netapp.com