ONTAP Hardware

How to supress "No redundancy in the failover configuration for 2 LIFs" mail.

Overz
24,728 Views

First off, let me aplogise. As english is not a mother tongue for me, I have trouble reading the mail, and think i am missing something (obvious). It seems excessisve to ask here as this should be a simple isue.

 

I get the mail as stated in the bottom of this message regularly. But i think this should not be a problem for us. You see, the LIFS they talk about as far as i can see contain the E0M (management port) and the snapmirror-sync port e0a (traffic between te netapps to snampirror-sync data between them)

 

So if as in the message stated the "home port or home node" would go offline, a failover is not possible right? I mean, if the management port goes down, i cannot manage it anymore, there is no possibility of failover. Same seems to go for the snapmirror port. It's alway one toaster to a other toaster. So this message is nothing to worry about right?

 

If this annalysis is correct, how do i get rid of this mail message? I cant seem to find it anywhere, and the netapp-jargon confuses me to a great extend. If i am wrong, i would love to have a direction to search in order to fix the non-redundant LIF.

 

 

 

*************** Failover config ******************

 

 

delft-bn-cluster-1::> net int show -failover -lif Delft-netapp2554-b_node_mgmt
  (network interface show)
         Logical         Home                  Failover        Failover
Vserver  Interface       Node:Port             Policy          Group
-------- --------------- --------------------- --------------- ---------------
delft-bn-cluster-1
         Delft-netapp2554-b_node_mgmt Delft-netapp2554-b:e0M
                                               local-only      Default Network
                         Failover Targets: Delft-netapp2554-b:e0M

delft-bn-cluster-1::> net int show -failover -lif sk-delft-backupB
  (network interface show)
         Logical         Home                  Failover        Failover
Vserver  Interface       Node:Port             Policy          Group
-------- --------------- --------------------- --------------- ---------------
BNAlgemeen
         sk-delft-backupB Delft-netapp2554-b:e0a
                                               local-only      VLAN 3
                         Failover Targets: Delft-netapp2554-b:e0a

 

 

 

 

 

********The mail: ********

 

Filer: Delft-netapp2554-b
Time: Sun, Oct 23 00:15:05 2016 +0200
Severity: LOG_ALERT

Message: vifmgr.lifs.noredundancy: No redundancy in the failover configuration for 2 LIFs
assigned to node "Delft-netapp2554-b". LIFs:
delft-bn-cluster-1:Delft-netapp2554-b_node_mgmt,
bnAlgemeen:sk-delft-backupB

Description: This message occurs when one or more logical interfaces (LIFs) are configured
to use a failover policy that implies failover to one or more ports but have no failover
targets beyond their home ports. If any affected home port or home node is offline or
unavailable, the corresponding LIFs will be operationally down and unable to serve data.

Action: Add additional ports to the broadcast domains or failover groups used by the
affected LIFs, or modify each LIF's failover policy to include one or more nodes with
available failover targets. For example, the "broadcast-domain-wide"
failover policy will consider all failover targets in a LIF's failover group.
Use the "network interface show -failover" command to review the currently assigned
failover targets for each LIF.

Source: vifmgr
Index: 162566

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

aborzenkov
24,717 Views

@Overz wrote:

So if as in the message stated the "home port or home node" would go offline, a failover is not possible right?


No. The message simply tells you that those LIFs do not have redundant ports, so if connection to the single port fails, those LIFs are not accessible. For intercluster LIF you should actually consider adding redundant port, because if your only port fails, no snapmirror traffic from/to this node is possible. Having redundant ports for node management does not hurt as well.

View solution in original post

10 REPLIES 10
Public