I forgot about this new feature until you mentioned it. Is this what you mean?:
CIFS, NFS and iSCSI on a per-interface basis: https://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=kb43722
Stetson Webster Professional Services Consultant Virtualization and Consolidation NCIE-SAN, NCIE-B&R, SCSN-E, VCP
NetApp 919.250.0052 Direct Phone stetson@netapp.com Learn more: http://www.imaginevirtuallyanything.com
-----Original Message----- From: Maxwell Reid [mailto:slinkywizard@integra.net] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:18 AM To: Webster, Stetson Cc: tmac; Romeo Theriault; Holland, William L; Funke, Stefan; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: routing issue with 2 vifs on same subnet?
Request For Enhancement:
Cisco routers have the ability to specify "source interface" for stuff like SNMP polling responses, traps, CDP etc. and routing protocol announcements. I think if you could do this for a filer, for management protocols and even particular mounts (all lockd, quotad, mount etc. responses for export X go out interface Y for netgroup Q. ) This would allow the admins to work around this problem when it crops up.
I obviously don't see this asymmetric problem with the actual NFS traffic, but sometimes the supporting protocols like mountd and lockd get confused. Yes, I understand that it shouldn't be an issue because the RPC Layer doesn't really need to care about the IP addresses, but if you're in a shop that runs host based firewalls this leads to interesting and subtle breakage.
All network setups aren't going to be flat, and fast path routing mechanisms do weird things with gateway redundancy protocols like HSRP. Mounting things over routed links is a perfectly legitimate activity and in fact are a good idea until we complete the transition to IPv6 where we can run things on huge flat networks without worrying about broadcast storms and the like. Besides, it's been a long time since routers were software boxes that added anything resembling significant latency or overhead.
~Max
On Apr 1, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Webster, Stetson wrote:
The easiest solution (if possible):
- Don't have all these subnets routable to and from each other;
isolate them. Best practices recommend that they do not route. 2. If you need bandwidth across separate physical NICs, put them into
a
large multimode VIF and then use VLAN tagging to separate the subnets.
The issue at hand is called "assymmetric routing" (Google it). I actually didn't realize there was a name for it until a couple years
ago
;-) When you Google it, the write-ups are pretty interesting
readings.
It has its place, but I don't think this is not one of them.
Good luck.
Stetson Webster Professional Services Consultant Virtualization and Consolidation NCIE-SAN, NCIE-B&R, SCSN-E, VCP
NetApp 919.250.0052 Direct Phone stetson@netapp.com Learn more: http://www.imaginevirtuallyanything.com
-----Original Message----- From: tmac [mailto:tmacmd@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:28 AM To: Romeo Theriault Cc: Holland, William L; Funke, Stefan; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: routing issue with 2 vifs on same subnet?
I suspect if:
you turn ip.fastpath (back) on and you clear the default route, you may likely be OK.
The filer should only need the default route for its' own services like sending autosupport and if the mail server is on the same subnet, then the default route is really not needed.
When clients come in to a particular interface, ip.fastpath should allow the request to go back out the same way they came in.
might be worth a try to see if that in fact does it. --tmac Tim McCarthy Principal Consultant
RedHat Certified Engineer 804006984323821 (RHEL4) 805007643429572 (RHEL5)
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Romeo Theriault romeotheriault@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:22 PM, tmac tmacmd@gmail.com wrote:
just for kicks, have your tried:
route -f
on your filer? if sa default route is set up, it may be the culprit. you may not need the default route on the filer if all you services are on the same subnet.
Nope, haven't tried this. Since we have some clients that connect to
the
filers from other subnets I'm not sure that this would be a good idea
for
us.
-- Romeo Theriault
-
Webster, Stetson