kls@netapp.com (Karl Swartz) writes:
On the other hand, there probably are a lot of customers who would rather have failover *now* even if it only works with 100base-TX or FDDI (or requires extra GbE NICs). If we told a FDDI customer that we'd be able to give them failover today but we won't because we've not finished a driver for a GbE NIC that can handle multiple MAC addresses, they'd probably be a bit peeved.
I agree about "failover *now*". FDDI -- isn't it dead yet? ;-)
So, your options at the moment are (a) use GbE but not have failover (b) use failover but not GbE (c) buy a second GbE NIC and have both failover and and GbE (d) wait until we have a GbE NIC and driver which will allow you to have failover with a single GbE
What about GbE and failover to non-GbE (fast ethernet)?
Just to make sure, does failover require EtherChannel?
- Dan
I agree about "failover *now*". FDDI -- isn't it dead yet? ;-)
I think someone still uses FDDI. Somewhere. Maybe. :-)
What about GbE and failover to non-GbE (fast ethernet)?
Good question. Thinking back on the configuration commands (I've moved over to NetCache and other Internet stuff, so this is a bit rusty), it seems like you should be able to configure. Whether or not we've actually tested it and will support it would be another matter entirely. I'd guess the answer to that one is no.
Just to make sure, does failover require EtherChannel?
Far from failover *requiring* EtherChannel, the two are currently mutually exclusive, according to some e-mail Paul Norman sent in this thread a few days ago. That's due to an oversight (when failover was spec'ed out, we weren't yet doing EtherChannel, and neither project noticed the other) and will be addressed in a future release.
-- Karl
-
Daniel Quinlan -
kls＠netapp.com