On 06/03/99 13:44:32 you wrote:
>
>Hi Ya'll,
>
>This is probably one of those questions for which there's no
>true correct answer, but I'm interested in peoples opinion.
Okay. Just for the record, my opinion is based on a balance
of administrative ease and flexibility with the need for
high performance.
>1) In setting up a NetApp, is it better to use one big/wide
>connection (say gigabit ethernet) as opposed to a bunch of
>narrow connections (say, 4 100mbps ethernet in a etherchannel).
>(Note that for this discussion I'm ignoring the redundancy in
>a etherchannel.)
One big connection, say Gigabit, is ideal for your primary data
backbone. You can still use other, smaller connections for other
smaller networks.
>2) On a Unix system that will be doing heavy NFS work to a NetApp,
>is it better to use separate mounts on separate but smaller ethernet
>connections (100mbps ethernet), or, run all mounts through one wide
>ethernet connection (gigabit ethernet)?
Again I would recommend running all the mounts from a particular
machine to one filer through one particular large network connection.
This is going to be administratively advantageous in the long run.
Even on a network with lots of networks for data access with lots
of different purposes (and I have no objection with such a
configuration), I'd still recommend keeping all of the mounts
from a given dataless client over the same network to the filer(s),
unless there is some very specific reason not to (like dedicated
remote backup networks).
Bruce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 10:20:27 EST