We do ifgrps within a node and then failover-groups between nodes. If one link goes down, traffic still stays local to the node. If the node goes down, traffic migrates as expected.
We also do a LIF per volume so that the LIF is local to the same node as the volume and a vol move can be done without having to remount the clients.
John
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:18:30AM -0400, Basil wrote:
We take advantage of this when we don't have enough network connectivity to ensure proper redunancy, but still use ifgrps whenever possible. It makes the load balancing less involved- if you use failover groups, you need to try and spread your LIFs around, but if you have an ifgrp, you just tie together all the physical interfaces and then make all your LIFs' home there.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Martin martin@leggatt.me.uk wrote:
Interesting thread....
A peer suggested recently that in cDOT failover groups could be used instead of ifgrps for availability. It was suggested as it simplifies the configuration (don't have ifgrps and failover groups) and means a LIF can failover to any port in the cluster (depending on type of LIF of course) rather than just the ports on the node.
Not considering throughput has anyone else heard of or considered this configuration?
Thanks Martin
-- View this message in context: http://network-appliance-toasters.10978.n7.nabble.com/FAS8040-network-config... Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com.