Hi All
In a fabric MC enviroment a pair of Brocade 16 ports have been used for each site. Once filled with the needed connections to head and selve (Pool0 and Pool1) there are a lot of SFP empty with no connection.
I know that other connection are not supported but I've already tried to attach a dual target HBA installed in each head and some HBA coming from hosts (Windows or Linux) and without zoning (you don't need it for MC) the Brocade I can expose all my FC LUNs created on NetApp and only to the right host using igroups with the 'authorized' WWWN. NetApp of course is in single_image cf mode.
What do you think about this "unsupported" configuration?
Many thanks
Hi,
On 12/4/07, Milazzo Giacomo G.Milazzo@sinergy.it wrote:
I know that other connection are not supported but I've already tried to attach a dual target HBA installed in each head and some HBA coming from hosts (Windows or Linux) and without zoning (you don't need it for MC) the Brocade I can expose all my FC LUNs created on NetApp and only to the right host using igroups with the 'authorized' WWWN. NetApp of course is in single_image cf mode.
What do you think about this "unsupported" configuration?
With a setup like this, I think you paid a lot of money for a configuration no one (certainly not NetApp) will be willing to give you any level of support on ...
Are you going to be able to justify this to your upper management if s*** really hits the fan ? I would just buy two extra FC switches for your host-to-LUN connectivity.
Best regards, Filip
I can understand your point of view but what you're saying is not always true... First consider certain environment where starting fm a 400k € pricelist arrive at 150k€ sold to end customer...some few k€ for another couple of switches reported to 400 is cheaper but it can't be so reported to the end price...
Second. The current 200E 16ports Brocade are licensed for full fabric and long distance (lot of money...) and there are now two monomodal fibers running for 1200 meters that create the two ISL for MC. What's about the cost to add another one or a pair of them just to trunk the switches hosting the app servers? (I presume you can imagine that if I want so HA and BC I put the node of my app cluster on the two sites, right?)
:-)
Regards,
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: Filip Sneppe [mailto:filip.sneppe@gmail.com] Inviato: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 14.30 A: Milazzo Giacomo Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Oggetto: Re: Fabric MC and Brocade free ports usage
Hi,
On 12/4/07, Milazzo Giacomo G.Milazzo@sinergy.it wrote:
I know that other connection are not supported but I've already tried to attach a dual target HBA installed in each head and some HBA coming from hosts (Windows or Linux) and without zoning (you don't need it for MC) the Brocade I can expose all my FC LUNs created on NetApp and only to the right host using igroups with the 'authorized' WWWN. NetApp of course is in single_image cf mode.
What do you think about this "unsupported" configuration?
With a setup like this, I think you paid a lot of money for a configuration no one (certainly not NetApp) will be willing to give you any level of support on ...
Are you going to be able to justify this to your upper management if s*** really hits the fan ? I would just buy two extra FC switches for your host-to-LUN connectivity.
Best regards, Filip
Forget... Why there are certain end users that have obtained the certification (and support) from NetApp for (just an example I know) a stretch MC at 10 km (yes, stretch and 10 km!) with the use of DWDM enhancers? After all if other kind of signals run on those distances clean and with no latency why not the CFO protocol subsets?
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: Filip Sneppe [mailto:filip.sneppe@gmail.com] Inviato: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 14.30 A: Milazzo Giacomo Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Oggetto: Re: Fabric MC and Brocade free ports usage
Hi,
On 12/4/07, Milazzo Giacomo G.Milazzo@sinergy.it wrote:
I know that other connection are not supported but I've already tried to attach a dual target HBA installed in each head and some HBA coming from hosts (Windows or Linux) and without zoning (you don't need it for MC) the Brocade I can expose all my FC LUNs created on NetApp and only to the right host using igroups with the 'authorized' WWWN. NetApp of course is in single_image cf mode.
What do you think about this "unsupported" configuration?
With a setup like this, I think you paid a lot of money for a configuration no one (certainly not NetApp) will be willing to give you any level of support on ...
Are you going to be able to justify this to your upper management if s*** really hits the fan ? I would just buy two extra FC switches for your host-to-LUN connectivity.
Best regards, Filip
Hi,
According to me, if it's not supported don't do it. When you are in trouble you will not get any support. The only thing you can do then is to get rid of those "not" supported" connections. This means angry users, management that don't understand those things and so on.... You always got the blame and why? Always the same answer cost reduction. But in the end is it worth it????
Bes regards...
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: dinsdag 4 december 2007 13:29 To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Fabric MC and Brocade free ports usage
Hi All
In a fabric MC enviroment a pair of Brocade 16 ports have been used for each site. Once filled with the needed connections to head and selve (Pool0 and Pool1) there are a lot of SFP empty with no connection.
I know that other connection are not supported but I've already tried to attach a dual target HBA installed in each head and some HBA coming from hosts (Windows or Linux) and without zoning (you don't need it for MC) the Brocade I can expose all my FC LUNs created on NetApp and only to the right host using igroups with the 'authorized' WWWN. NetApp of course is in single_image cf mode.
What do you think about this "unsupported" configuration?
Many thanks
-
Daniels, Rik -
Filip Sneppe -
Milazzo Giacomo