Accepted Solution

Connecting a CISCO 3570 X stack to FAS2240


I am very new to netapp , currently in the process of setting up its network connectivity. The setup would be done with multiple VLANS in such a way that , controller-1 would be dedicated for virtualization (using ISCSI/NFS) and controller-2 would be for NFS/CIFS file shares.

I have a quick question regarding connecting a CISCO 3570 X stack to FAS2240 with dual controller.  Which is the recommended way ? I have some assumptions but not so sure. Any help would be really appreciated.

#My assumptions:

1. Out of two interfaces of controller-1 , connect to each switch in the stack (say a stack of CISCO 2 x 3570 X series). Similarly for controller-2.


2. Two interfaces of controller-1 to first switch in the stack and two interfaces of controller-2 to  second switch in the stack. 

In both cases, should we have to choose a partner interface while configuring VIFs?

Thanks in advance for help.



Re: Connecting a CISCO 3570 X stack to FAS2240

Each NetApp controller is independent and has own connectivity. So variant 1 will give high available connection for each controller. And yes, to ensure addresses are taken over by partner during controller failure you need to set partner interface.

Re: Connecting a CISCO 3570 X stack to FAS2240

Thanks a lot for your reply. I'll go with 1st variant...

However in variant 2, suppose if the switch-1 which is connected to  controller-1 fails, are we lost with controller-1 connectivity completely ?  Can partner interface in controller-2 takes over the addresses and route traffic via switch-2 ? 

Re: Connecting a CISCO 3570 X stack to FAS2240

Yes, NetApp supports failover on loss of connectivity. Check documentation for “negotiated failover”.

To avoid misunderstanding - it is not failover of interface. It is failover of complete controller - i.e. one controller is shut down and all services are migrated to partner.

Re: Connecting a CISCO 3570 X stack to FAS2240

So to summarize,   if I go with variant2, with "negotiated failover"  enabled, still we can survive with one switch failure, provided the whole load would be on the second controller!.

In variant 1 since its dual connected on each switch in the stack, we have the controller available without a partner migration being triggered. Which is exactly would be apt for my need as we could dedicate controllers for different purposes.  And at last a partner interface config would help in the event of controller failure. 

Thank you again.