<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: General: NetApp / Virtual Connect &#8211; connect without a switch	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:49:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Kliment Andreev		</title>
		<link>https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/#comment-146</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kliment Andreev]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.iandreev.com/?p=512#comment-146</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Correct. You won&#039;t have multipath.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correct. You won&#8217;t have multipath.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mathieu		</title>
		<link>https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/#comment-145</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mathieu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.iandreev.com/?p=512#comment-145</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Great post, I am facing the same problem and try to connect a FAS2240 directly on the Flex10 of a C7000.

Am I wrong, or the only bad thing with this setup is that we can&#039;t do ISCSI Multipath ? 
Causse in this setup if I understand correctly each NetApp controller have ISCSI IP in only one vlan ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, I am facing the same problem and try to connect a FAS2240 directly on the Flex10 of a C7000.</p>
<p>Am I wrong, or the only bad thing with this setup is that we can&#8217;t do ISCSI Multipath ?<br />
Causse in this setup if I understand correctly each NetApp controller have ISCSI IP in only one vlan &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: bill.worthington		</title>
		<link>https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/#comment-9</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bill.worthington]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.iandreev.com/?p=512#comment-9</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/#comment-8&quot;&gt;Kliment Andreev&lt;/a&gt;.

I would like to thank you for your blog post.  We followed your configuration as closely as possible (minus IP addressing and vlan ids).  I ended up having the e3a and e3b mixed up as to what was cabled where on the VC side.  Since we are stacking two enclosures, we split the connections between the two chassis and created the SUS&#039;s so controller A&#039;s connections were one SUS and controller B&#039;s connections were a second SUS.  Since I only have a single port on the blade usable for this traffic, I set LOM2-a to multiple networks and specified both ethernet networks.  Then on the vmware side, I created another vSwitch and created vmkernel port groups for both networks.  Since we also have a requirement to do CIFS to the VM, I created  two virtual machine port groups (one with each vlan).  Then on the VM side, I added a nic for each portgroup.  Once a static IP address was assigned that was on the same subnet as the Netapp, CIFS came right up.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/#comment-8">Kliment Andreev</a>.</p>
<p>I would like to thank you for your blog post.  We followed your configuration as closely as possible (minus IP addressing and vlan ids).  I ended up having the e3a and e3b mixed up as to what was cabled where on the VC side.  Since we are stacking two enclosures, we split the connections between the two chassis and created the SUS&#8217;s so controller A&#8217;s connections were one SUS and controller B&#8217;s connections were a second SUS.  Since I only have a single port on the blade usable for this traffic, I set LOM2-a to multiple networks and specified both ethernet networks.  Then on the vmware side, I created another vSwitch and created vmkernel port groups for both networks.  Since we also have a requirement to do CIFS to the VM, I created  two virtual machine port groups (one with each vlan).  Then on the VM side, I added a nic for each portgroup.  Once a static IP address was assigned that was on the same subnet as the Netapp, CIFS came right up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Kliment Andreev		</title>
		<link>https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/#comment-8</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kliment Andreev]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:17:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.iandreev.com/?p=512#comment-8</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I forgot to tell that all my other ports (x1-x6) were already taken, so I had to use port x7 and port x8. You can use any ports available. As a matter of fact, HP recommends x7 and x8 for inter-chassis communication, something that you already have in place. As for splitting the connection, that was the only way of making this thing work. I tried to use one SUS encompassing both VirtualConnects but it didn&#039;t work. I tried using probably all posible LACP/non-LACP combinations on the NetApp and the VirtualConnect and it didn&#039;t work. Simply, I wasn&#039;t able to ping or there was no redundancy. This is the only config that gives me both. If you find a better solution, let me know. Life would be much easier if there was a switch in between. :)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I forgot to tell that all my other ports (x1-x6) were already taken, so I had to use port x7 and port x8. You can use any ports available. As a matter of fact, HP recommends x7 and x8 for inter-chassis communication, something that you already have in place. As for splitting the connection, that was the only way of making this thing work. I tried to use one SUS encompassing both VirtualConnects but it didn&#8217;t work. I tried using probably all posible LACP/non-LACP combinations on the NetApp and the VirtualConnect and it didn&#8217;t work. Simply, I wasn&#8217;t able to ping or there was no redundancy. This is the only config that gives me both. If you find a better solution, let me know. Life would be much easier if there was a switch in between. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: bill.worthington		</title>
		<link>https://blog.andreev.it/2012/12/netapp-virtual-connect-connect-without-a-switch/#comment-7</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bill.worthington]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.iandreev.com/?p=512#comment-7</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have a very similar configuration that I&#039;m trying to put together.  The differences are that I have two enclosures connected via Virtual Connect.  We are running the flex-10 modules in bays 1&#038;2 of both enclosures.  Would there be a compelling reason to use the x7&#038;x8 interfaces on them?  With our layout, we are looking at doing NFS and CIFS over the 10G links.  Do you still think that splitting the shared uplinks into two groups is necessary?  Any advise you can provide would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a very similar configuration that I&#8217;m trying to put together.  The differences are that I have two enclosures connected via Virtual Connect.  We are running the flex-10 modules in bays 1&amp;2 of both enclosures.  Would there be a compelling reason to use the x7&amp;x8 interfaces on them?  With our layout, we are looking at doing NFS and CIFS over the 10G links.  Do you still think that splitting the shared uplinks into two groups is necessary?  Any advise you can provide would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
