I thought the license keys were different for every machine. Are you saying I can use the license key for one machine on another. Aren't they tied to serialnumbers?
I didn't setup the netapps so not sure if they just used one set for each head in the cluster. My other cluster has a different license (though both heads of that cluster have the same license).
Anybody else out there with a cluster, what does is listed when you run license on each head?
I figure we will get a 15% improvement in performance if I break the heads. How much performance improvement have people seen when they have moved from 100mb to gig?
art
-----Original Message----- From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:44 PM To: Art Hebert Cc: 'toasters@mathworks.com' Subject: Re: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they still w ork?
I have a Netapp F760 cluster that I may want to seperate for performance reasons.
Keep in mind you won't gain that much. You'll double the write cache, but that's about it. If you need more disk bandwidth, toy w/ 3rd party adapters -- it'd be too easy compared w/ losing clustering.
I noticed they have the same license when I run the license command.
This is undoubtedly an error -- cluster partners are issued their own licenses (except cluster license... can't remember there) -- someone probably didn't bother looking for the other sheet of license keys.
Will they both continue to work seperately if I disconnect the cluster connections?
Should work fine, though you probably should open a support case to see if someone can dig up the proper license keys for you to avoid trouble in the future.
..kg..
I thought the license keys were different for every machine. Are you saying I can use the license key for one machine on another. Aren't they tied to serialnumbers?
AFAIK, no.
Anybody else out there with a cluster, what does is listed when you run license on each head?
Now that I look, both heads of my cluster have the same license keys. I'm not sure if that's intentional, or the same lazy case mentioned previously. Ugh.
I figure we will get a 15% improvement in performance if I break the heads. How much performance improvement have people seen when they have moved from 100mb to gig?
Haven't had a chance to compare them side to side, but the gige's are preferable even for equivalent traffic given some of the extras, such as checksum offloading, jumbo framing (if you can use it) and interrupt coalescing.
Where are you extracting the 15% number though? (and how is the 100:1000mb related?)
..kg..