Chris,

If I'm not incorrect, the redundant FCAL loop is not used for data transfer unless there is a problem with first loop. In this regard, even if 2nd FCAL card is not in an ideal slot, it would not matter that much.

Nevertheless, it is better to avoid it altogether if possible...

Hope it helps, Eyal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- eTraitel - I'm the new eBuzzword around !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eyal Traitel - Filer Escalation Engineer CNA, MCSE, CSA, LCA, NetApp CA

Network Appliance BV Holland Office Center Kruisweg 799b 2132 NG, Hoofddorp The Netherlands Office: +31 23 567 9685 Cellular: +31 6 5497 2568 Email: eyal@netapp.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Get answers NOW! - NetApp On the Web - http://now.netapp.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message----- From: Chris Thompson [mailto:cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:32 PM To: jkrueger@qualcomm.com Cc: Josh.Gifford@ptd.siemens.com; toasters@mathworks.com; rafter@netapp.com Subject: Re: Redundant FCALs with ONTAP 6.1

jkrueger@qualcomm.com (Jeffrey Krueger) writes

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:50:05PM -0400, Gifford, Josh wrote:

...

Hello everyone, I will be upgrading my filer to redundant fcals this week and I wanted to check to see if anyone is already doing this. I don't think there will be any tricks to it, but it never hurts to ask.

[...]

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"?

Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.