Aggregate relocation or storage failover impact to hosts with MPIO

[I_M]

Hey there.

Under SAN configurations for HA pair, attempting to reduce the "loss of reduntancy" aspect while ontap software upgrades... 

Was wondering if the below scenario make sense.

MPIO on hosts will determine the best 'active" path"  based on which node's aggregate the LUN is hosted...

if an aggregate relocation or SFO is issued, is the active path automatically change to use the partner path as optimesed path?

if so yes ,then i could upgrade the "vacated" node ,and then do the same extra step on the other node (by ARL or SFO) ,thus be able to manage the upgarde's impact on what the hosts are experiensing as far the optimesed paths ,or loss of  active paths ?

[SpindleNinja]

I think you might be over thinking this?    but just so i'm reading this right,  you want to move workloads before and during a code update? 

I'd think you'd need to disable ALUA (not recommend) and then move aggrs/vols around while in a mixed state, which... I wouldn't do.   

What is your thoughts behind this?   MPIO / host failover is designed to failover in such a way.     There is also a wait time specified between takeovers and give backs when using SAN.  This gives the pathing a chance to "settle down" between operations.