You can split them if you like. I only said do the 2-disk to the
"passive" side if you wanted an active/passive config. If you want to
go active/active, then split them up. Just be aware that depending on
your load, you may get spindle-bound at some point with that few disks
in your aggregate, but you may be fine until you get your new disks
later.
-- Adam Fox
Systems Engineer
adamfox@...
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Van Dolson [mailto:
rvandolson@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:01 PM
To: Fox, Adam
Cc:
toasters@...
Subject: Re: FAS2050C questions (clustering)
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:54:35AM -0700, Fox, Adam wrote:
> You are correct that clustering is treated as two separate controllers
> which can take over for each other. You cannot vif across NICs on
> different controllers.
>
> If you want to do the closest thing to active/passive would be to
> allocate at least 2 (possible 3 if you want a spare) disks to the
> "passive" controller and the rest to the active one. I'd set up a
raid4
> trad vol or aggregate for it since you only are going to use 2 disks,
> you don't need raid_dp. Definitely use raid_dp on the active
> controller.
>
> Under this scenario, you can lose either controller head and still be
> running.
Ah, so we need to have disks assigned to the "passive" controller in an
aggregate configuration? What if I just split the disks up evenly,
would the aggregate on "active" controller shift down to be controlled
by the "passive" controller automatically?
Maybe this would be preferrable to having 2 or 3 disks doing "nothing"
on the second head.
Thanks for the response.
>
> -- Adam Fox
> Systems Engineer
>
adamfox@...
Ray
