<?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 Layering vif's where lacp member vif's are of unequal size in VMware Solutions Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/VMware-Solutions-Discussions/Layering-vif-s-where-lacp-member-vif-s-are-of-unequal-size/m-p/34719#M3442</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi, I have a dual-controller 3140a in a QA environment with only 2 on-board GigE ports each.&amp;nbsp; The current config has:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Single vif per controller&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- e0a active&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- e0b standby&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- each nic port is attached to a separate Cisco 6509-E switch.&amp;nbsp; There is a 4-gig port channel between the switches but they do not have the cross-stacking VSS module.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;On each side I am going to add a 4-port GigE PCIe card and then implement:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- 2 lacp vif's - one connected to each 6509 switch - vif_lacp0, vif_lacp1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- 1 single-mode vif layered above the 2 lacp vif's.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So the config on Controller1 would look like:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif create lacp -b ip vif_lacp0 &amp;lt;nics&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif create lacp -b ip vif_lacp1 &amp;lt;nics&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif create single vif_single0 vif_lacp0 vif_lacp1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif favor vif_lacp0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;* matching config with appropriate naming changes will be put on Controller2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Controller 1 is the primary controller for Oracle DB connections (2 2-node RAC clusters)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Controller 2 is the primary controller for a VMware vSphere cluster (8 hosts)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What I'm trying to determine and decide is whether the &amp;lt;nics&amp;gt;&amp;nbsp; belonging to the lacp vif's have to be equal in number?&amp;nbsp; If not I was considering making:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif_lacp0 (active) use all 4-ports from the add-in card&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif_lacp1 (standby) use the 2-ports from the on-board card&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Pros:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- additional bandwidth with higher single link-loss failure on active vif's, which should be up and active almost 100% of the time&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- avoid any issues if differences in chipsets b/w onboard nics and expansion card nics&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cons:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Lower bandwidth available during outages, although it would take full loss of primary 6500 to be in that situation&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone tried this before with good or bad results?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PS&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:08:16 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>patrick</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:08:16Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Layering vif's where lacp member vif's are of unequal size</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/VMware-Solutions-Discussions/Layering-vif-s-where-lacp-member-vif-s-are-of-unequal-size/m-p/34719#M3442</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi, I have a dual-controller 3140a in a QA environment with only 2 on-board GigE ports each.&amp;nbsp; The current config has:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Single vif per controller&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- e0a active&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- e0b standby&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- each nic port is attached to a separate Cisco 6509-E switch.&amp;nbsp; There is a 4-gig port channel between the switches but they do not have the cross-stacking VSS module.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;On each side I am going to add a 4-port GigE PCIe card and then implement:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- 2 lacp vif's - one connected to each 6509 switch - vif_lacp0, vif_lacp1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- 1 single-mode vif layered above the 2 lacp vif's.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So the config on Controller1 would look like:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif create lacp -b ip vif_lacp0 &amp;lt;nics&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif create lacp -b ip vif_lacp1 &amp;lt;nics&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif create single vif_single0 vif_lacp0 vif_lacp1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif favor vif_lacp0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;* matching config with appropriate naming changes will be put on Controller2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Controller 1 is the primary controller for Oracle DB connections (2 2-node RAC clusters)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Controller 2 is the primary controller for a VMware vSphere cluster (8 hosts)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What I'm trying to determine and decide is whether the &amp;lt;nics&amp;gt;&amp;nbsp; belonging to the lacp vif's have to be equal in number?&amp;nbsp; If not I was considering making:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif_lacp0 (active) use all 4-ports from the add-in card&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vif_lacp1 (standby) use the 2-ports from the on-board card&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Pros:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- additional bandwidth with higher single link-loss failure on active vif's, which should be up and active almost 100% of the time&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- avoid any issues if differences in chipsets b/w onboard nics and expansion card nics&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cons:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Lower bandwidth available during outages, although it would take full loss of primary 6500 to be in that situation&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone tried this before with good or bad results?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PS&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:08:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/VMware-Solutions-Discussions/Layering-vif-s-where-lacp-member-vif-s-are-of-unequal-size/m-p/34719#M3442</guid>
      <dc:creator>patrick</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:08:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Layering vif's where lacp member vif's are of unequal size</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/VMware-Solutions-Discussions/Layering-vif-s-where-lacp-member-vif-s-are-of-unequal-size/m-p/34723#M3443</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes this does work and is supported.&amp;nbsp; Another example we have implemented in a similar manner is a single 10GbE NIC as primary then a 4x 1GbE LACP secondary.&amp;nbsp; Then the single mode vif contains the single interface and the second level vif.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:47:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/VMware-Solutions-Discussions/Layering-vif-s-where-lacp-member-vif-s-are-of-unequal-size/m-p/34723#M3443</guid>
      <dc:creator>scottgelb</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-09-18T03:47:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

