I've followed up on TR-3548 with regards to Stretch MetroCluster cabling and now I have a setup exactly like the one below:
I find it curious that for each controller, all FiberBridge connections, both local and remote, are connected to the same FC adapter [slot 3, in this case]. The same applies for DS14 shelf loop [slot 2].
Is this best practice or some kind of prerequisite? I wondering if it wouldn't be more resilient to mix up FiberBridge and DS14 connections between those 2 adapters, so that in case of failure for one adapter - there's still one local connection left to FiberBridge stack or DS14 loop?
Personally I would split connection to each loop/stack across two adapters. May be this was created as example of adding SAS to existing DS14 cluster, where you would avoid moving existing connections.
I sent comment to TR publisher, let’s see if we get any response ☺
Yes, it will be done offline. We have downtime scheduled during which we plan to physically migrate one half of the MetroCluster, along with some network equipment and server resources - to the new building.
Hence my idea to use that opportunity to re-wire the shelves/controllers in a more resilient way. The only thing I could see as a potential issue was aggregate "persistency", or more simply put, disruption of disk paths (on SAS shelves) connected via FiberBridge... I wouldn't like to trigger any events that would cause further downtime. Is there any precaution I could take during boot-up sequence, maybe?