One thing that I looked at recently was using "single-mode trunking".
It's like etherchannel, but one one connection is active. I
tested it out and worked great for a single filer. (All my
filers are clusters, and the config for that is much more complicated.)
Try looking at this:
http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel53/html/sag/net14.htm#1186750
Aaron
On Aug 02, Ethan Torretta <ethantor@corp.webtv.net> wrote:
> Today, after yet another service interruption from a failed NIC, I
> realized the obvious, that I should have redundant or at least more
> reliable network interfaces on all the filers. The easy short-term
> solution is to have configured but downed second interfaces ready for
> quick duty, so I'll be setting that up tomorrow. What I'd like to hear
> from toasters is, first, which interfaces are most stable, whether single
> port, quad port, or Gbit, and whether anyone has had any experience with
> the relative reliability of fast etherchannel vs. Gbit.
>
> I realize a single Gbit interface is theoretically less reliable than fast
> etherchannel because it is a single link, but what I fear about
> etherchannel is that a tricky etherchannel implementation combined with
> flaky NICs could be significantly less reliable in practice than a solid
> Gbit NIC. Certainly the load-balancing algorithms for etherchannel on
> Cisco switches are not trivial.
>
> Network traffic is not much of an issue. The current single 100tx-fd
> connections are hardly taxed, with peak loads reaching only 35 Mbit.
> Either etherchannel or Gbit would provide enough capacity for the next
> year, possibly longer. The only real issue I have to address is
> reliability.
>
> ejt
>
>
-- Aaron M. Sims | "The reason why bad things happen to you is BellSouth.net | because you're a dumbass!" Systems Engineer | - Red Foreman, That 70s Show aaron.sims@bellsouth.net|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 10:20:36 EST