<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: IP Failover/Migrate in Active/Active setup ? in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IP-Failover-Migrate-in-Active-Active-setup/m-p/46895#M11023</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aggregate is dedicated to one filer. Concurrent access from both filers in HA pair to the same aggregate is impossible.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 04:15:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>aborzenkov</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-09-19T04:15:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>IP Failover/Migrate in Active/Active setup ?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IP-Failover-Migrate-in-Active-Active-setup/m-p/46891#M11021</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;HI All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At the moment I have an Active/Active setup&amp;nbsp; with two filers and four shelves.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The configuration at the moment is that every filer has his own 2 shelves on the a0 controller and looped to the 0c controller of the other filer so both know these storage shelfs exist.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now this is not 100% ideal I'm discovering as I need the following while I'm testing:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Filer 01 holds it's own shelves and Filer 02 also.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Filer 02 will have a Sync Copy in some way of the shelves that are on Filer 01.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Filer 02 can take over the IP's of Filer 01 when Filer 01 goes offline in some way.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Filer 02 will see all shelves when Filer 01 goes down.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have the feeling that some things are not possible here in my lineup as a outage of Filer 01 will always get a disconnect in some way. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The other idea is that Filer 02 still has the "Sync Shelves" attached but also has access to the same aggregates or volumes as Filer 01 has. In that case I can do a Failover using "loadbalancing" in a 40% - 40% (20% overhead when one falls away) way and have half of the servers connected to Filer 01 and Half of the servers connected Filer 02.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have seperate "Synced" Shelves that are not used for accesable data, but only for local backup and also have a active/active failover that is also loadbalanced too.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would this be possible ? Or maybe something else ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:53:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IP-Failover-Migrate-in-Active-Active-setup/m-p/46891#M11021</guid>
      <dc:creator>YAMAKASI_D</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:53:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IP Failover/Migrate in Active/Active setup ?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IP-Failover-Migrate-in-Active-Active-setup/m-p/46895#M11023</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aggregate is dedicated to one filer. Concurrent access from both filers in HA pair to the same aggregate is impossible.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 04:15:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IP-Failover-Migrate-in-Active-Active-setup/m-p/46895#M11023</guid>
      <dc:creator>aborzenkov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-09-19T04:15:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IP Failover/Migrate in Active/Active setup ?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IP-Failover-Migrate-in-Active-Active-setup/m-p/46900#M11026</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Understood, I already thought this was impossible. When I know what is impossible I can look for the alternatives.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What I think is strange that the most examples I fund are active/active setups, but nothing about IP-takeover with this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is my concern actually, or share load and have redundancy that way or be shure we have a IP-takeover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:16:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IP-Failover-Migrate-in-Active-Active-setup/m-p/46900#M11026</guid>
      <dc:creator>YAMAKASI_D</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-09-19T06:16:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

