2012-09-12 03:20 PM
With a local configuration in the rc:
ifconfig NFS-972 10.72.12.12 netmask 255.255.254.0 mtusize 1500 -wins partner NFS-972
and a HA-pair ifconfig of:
NFS-972: flags=0x710a862<BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,TCPCKSUM,NOWINS> mtu 1500
ether 02:a0:98:27:01:ca (Enabled virtual interface)
with no IP assigned to the partner's obviously ifgrped and tagged interface, will a takeover work?
We have no way to check it without a test take/give, but if there is an IP assigned, there is probably a higher chance that it will work than otherwise, no?
In looking at another configuration a few moments later, I see this:
NFS-981: flags=0x310a862<BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,TCPCKSUM> mtu 1500
partner NFS-981 (not in use)
ether 02:a0:98:26:3d:0e (Enabled virtual interface)
Indicating to me that there is information missing in the first (the "partner" in the ifconfig -a statement) that shows that the takeover would not work. Does that make sense?
2012-09-12 07:57 PM
In this case my first concern is that interface is not up.
You can test this behavior in 7.x simulator which supports HA pair simulation (pity it was dropped in 8.x).
2012-09-12 08:25 PM
An interface with a partner but no IP is a standby interface and works just fine... although check the partner and why it doesn't have partner showing in the ifconfig. The partner interface works the same on takeover whether or not it has an IP address (or additional ip addresses with aliases) or no ip address it still picks it up on the partner. What is the ifconfig statement on the partner? The ifconfig -a output is listed but not the commands in the rc file that look like it doesn't have partner defined.
2012-09-13 05:42 AM
In our environment we configure every partner interface with an IP... So we know always that this Interface would prober takeover the Partnerinterface.
I recommend to configure every HA Environment balanced. That means you have all VLANs/IPs active on both Controllers.........
Adapted to your enironment:
netapp1 ifconfig NFS-972 10.72.12.12 netmask 255.255.254.0 mtusize 1500 -wins partner NFS-972
netapp2 ifconfig NFS-972 10.72.12.13 netmask 255.255.254.0 mtusize 1500 -wins partner NFS-972
Hope this help...
2012-09-13 07:30 AM
This will work fine without any trouble.
One thing you need to make sure is
1.VLAN has been tagged on the network switches.
2.This needs to be added to /etc/rc with the VLAN and IP address.
2012-09-13 10:39 AM
I should have been more specific the "ifconfig -a" are from the partner, while the ifconfig statement is from the local controller's rc.
The local controller's "ifconfig -a" for that interface is:
NFS-972: flags=0x794a863<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,TCPCKSUM,NOWINS> mtu 1500
inet 10.72.12.12 netmask-or-prefix 0xfffffe00 broadcast 10.181.239.255
partner NFS-972 (not in use)
ether 02:a0:98:24:68:52 (Enabled virtual interface)
Interestingly, the partner's ifconfig for NFS-972 doesn't have the "partner" statement correct, but the local's "ifconfig -a" shows correctly. The partner's ifconfig statement is configured correctly in rc and shows such in the local "ifconfig -a" output.
What it boils down to now, is whether or not the ambiguity of the missing "partner" statement in the partner's ifconfig going to cause an issue on a takevoer?
Does that mean that the partner has not "accepted" that the local controller has declared a specific interface is expecting to land on "that" interface?
2012-09-13 10:41 AM
Thanks, I understand that part plenty well, this is a customer's configuration. I always want to see symmetry in the network configurations (as well as the vfiler setups), but I had never noticed this sort of discrepancy before.
2012-09-13 10:43 AM
The interface not being up is a problem for me, but I suspect that is only because there is no IP on it. It is on a physical interface that is tagged with several other functioning vlans, so layer-1 is not an issue.
Other's note this is a "standby", I understand that, but there is no way to tell, without an IP, whether or not the tagging on the switch port is functional.
2012-09-13 10:50 AM
Good points. You could manually ifconfig an ip to the node and see if it works the. Ifconfig 0.0.0.0 to remove it after the test but leaving it as a standby partner interface.
Sent from my iPhone 4S
2012-09-13 02:08 PM
I just tested this i.e taking out the partner statement in my other node in the cluster and the interface did not fail over.
You need to add this statement in the /etc/rc for that virtual interface.
Thanks for the good one.
Also adding/removing Partner statements needs a reboot.It did not take it with source command.