<?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 cDOT - Using mixed SAN / NAS SVMs in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/cDOT-Using-mixed-SAN-NAS-SVMs/m-p/119303#M25552</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;While cDOT SVM/Vservers have always allowed any mix of NAS&amp;nbsp;and SAN protocols, over time a&amp;nbsp;'best-practice' seems to&amp;nbsp;have&amp;nbsp;developed that one should keep these two types of protocols segregated in different SVMs. To be honest, I've never seen or read this best practices myself, but I presume it's&amp;nbsp;out there somewhere because so many people tell me about it. But I also believe that sometimes best-practices are mis-interpreted and evolve into you-gotta-do-it-that-way'isms.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd like to understand the&amp;nbsp;the history (any cDOT version evolutions) and other truths and falsehoods around this. Equally important are any gotchas like: 'Sure you can do that, but you&amp;nbsp;won't be able to use feature-X). Also, are there any layered products (SnapDrive, SnapXyz) that will hit issues or become cumbersome in mixed SAN/NAS SVMs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can see reasons to keep them separate for usability, tidiness, and 'why not' reasons but I'm more interested in 'real gotchas' that mixing SAN/NAS might introduce.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 20:57:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>dkorns</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-04T20:57:37Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>cDOT - Using mixed SAN / NAS SVMs</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/cDOT-Using-mixed-SAN-NAS-SVMs/m-p/119303#M25552</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;While cDOT SVM/Vservers have always allowed any mix of NAS&amp;nbsp;and SAN protocols, over time a&amp;nbsp;'best-practice' seems to&amp;nbsp;have&amp;nbsp;developed that one should keep these two types of protocols segregated in different SVMs. To be honest, I've never seen or read this best practices myself, but I presume it's&amp;nbsp;out there somewhere because so many people tell me about it. But I also believe that sometimes best-practices are mis-interpreted and evolve into you-gotta-do-it-that-way'isms.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd like to understand the&amp;nbsp;the history (any cDOT version evolutions) and other truths and falsehoods around this. Equally important are any gotchas like: 'Sure you can do that, but you&amp;nbsp;won't be able to use feature-X). Also, are there any layered products (SnapDrive, SnapXyz) that will hit issues or become cumbersome in mixed SAN/NAS SVMs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can see reasons to keep them separate for usability, tidiness, and 'why not' reasons but I'm more interested in 'real gotchas' that mixing SAN/NAS might introduce.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 20:57:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/cDOT-Using-mixed-SAN-NAS-SVMs/m-p/119303#M25552</guid>
      <dc:creator>dkorns</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T20:57:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

