You can split them if you like. I only said do the 2-disk to the "passive" side if you wanted an active/passive config. If you want to go active/active, then split them up. Just be aware that depending on your load, you may get spindle-bound at some point with that few disks in your aggregate, but you may be fine until you get your new disks later.
-- Adam Fox Systems Engineer adamfox@netapp.com
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Van Dolson [mailto:rvandolson@esri.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:01 PM To: Fox, Adam Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: FAS2050C questions (clustering)
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:54:35AM -0700, Fox, Adam wrote:
You are correct that clustering is treated as two separate controllers which can take over for each other. You cannot vif across NICs on different controllers.
If you want to do the closest thing to active/passive would be to allocate at least 2 (possible 3 if you want a spare) disks to the "passive" controller and the rest to the active one. I'd set up a
raid4
trad vol or aggregate for it since you only are going to use 2 disks, you don't need raid_dp. Definitely use raid_dp on the active controller.
Under this scenario, you can lose either controller head and still be running.
Ah, so we need to have disks assigned to the "passive" controller in an aggregate configuration? What if I just split the disks up evenly, would the aggregate on "active" controller shift down to be controlled by the "passive" controller automatically?
Maybe this would be preferrable to having 2 or 3 disks doing "nothing" on the second head.
Thanks for the response.
-- Adam Fox Systems Engineer adamfox@netapp.com
Ray