topic Re: creating a second-level VIF in Network and Storage Protocols

creating a second-level VIF

DUANESTRYDER — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:11:19 GMT

Hi Experts,

I have two 10Gbe (e2a and e2b) and two 1Gbe (e0a and e0b), I created a vif for each pair

ifgrp create lacp INT-1G -b ip e0a e0b

ifgrp create lacp INT-10G -b ip e2a e2b

So now I want to create a VIF out of those two VIF, I am not sure if I should use single, multi or lacp. Then I want to favor the INT-10G

ifgrp create lacp INT-COMBO -b ip INT-10G INT-1G

ifgrp favor INT-10G

Can you please confirm if I got it correct, specailly the line that creates the INT-COMBO?

Thanks,

Re: creating a second-level VIF

bbjholcomb — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:04:41 GMT

I suggest a single mode VIF for the second level VIF. I believe that if you use multi or LACP Ontap will use both of them. If you want the filer to use one or the other VIF use single mode and favor the one you want.

I believe that LACP should only be used with switches that support that, not sure it would work between two VIFs.

Re: creating a second-level VIF

AGUMADAVALLI — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:50:50 GMT

Hey

This is the best practice to use them and hope this helps you.

ifgrp create lacp INT-1G -b ip e0a e0b

ifgrp create lacp INT-10G -b ip e2a e2b

ifgrp create single INT-COMBO INT-10G INT-1G

ifgrp favor INT-10G

thank you

AK G

Re: creating a second-level VIF

DUANESTRYDER — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:09:45 GMT

Thanks! I was planning to share the trunk for iscsi, nfs and cifs traffic. However, I heard one Netapp guy saying that doing so could create contention with iscsi and nfs, specially when a storage vmotion is being performed. Is there some truth to that base on your experience?

Re: creating a second-level VIF

AGUMADAVALLI — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:54:08 GMT

If you are on the 10GB Pipe, no issues at all but for some reason as per the rc file, moved to 1 GBE. Then you may have contention but there is no document to show this truth.

Thank you

AK G

Re: creating a second-level VIF

HUBBARDGRAHAM — Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:21:17 GMT

Did this config work for you? I believe this is similar to what i am trying to achieve. See my posted question at link below

https://communities.netapp.com/thread/32348