This post is more than 5 years old
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
4827
10G Ports and Isilon labeling
I am curious who's bright idea it was to designate port 1 and port 2 exactly the opposite of how they are designated with LEDs. It's not just a labeling issue, if i unplug the cable from the top port LED next to 1 goes out but within Isilon i get an alert about interface B (or something of that nature). Imagine how confusing it is to troubleshoot connectivity issues.
peglarr
99 Posts
0
October 1st, 2014 02:00
I agree, it can (and is) confusing when the manufacturers of the various components cannot agree if port numbering starts at zero or one. So, the designer is left with the following decision on mapping, using two components, one starting at zero, the other starting at one:
0->1, 1->2 or
0->2, 1->1
Isilon chose the mapping and added the label that you see in the picture to help, visually. If we chose the opposite mapping, we'd hear from 'the other side' just as loudly
Peter_Sero
1.2K Posts
0
September 30th, 2014 02:00
> I am curious who's bright idea it was...
ask "thaag" as in
version = "$Id: probe_config.0.gc XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX thaag $";
nic3 {
name = "cxgb0";
...
order = 1;
}
nic4 {
name = "cxgb1";
...
order = 0;
}
scnr
-- Peter
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
September 30th, 2014 06:00
Peter,
what am i supposed to do with that ?
Seriously does anyone else think it's an issue ? If someone from Isilon support tells me, hey you have an issue with NIC 1, can you unplug it. I would look at the interface and assume that port on the top is NIC 1 and when unplugged LED 1 would turn off and as far as i am concerned i disconnected the correct interface. While in reality i disconnected NIC 2 and potentially took the entire node offline. Thoughts ?
Jim_Hegner
212 Posts
1
September 30th, 2014 06:00
Hi Dynamox
Thank you for sharing that information.
We are in the middle of a large install with multiple racks filled with Isilon from top to buttom..nobody looks at that small label under the ports...
Nice to know that things a done in a not so smart way...
And I agree, that this is not the best wasy of doing things.
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
1
September 30th, 2014 06:00
there is got to be a reason why Isilon went through the trouble of not using common sense and mapping internal interface 1 to LED 2 . Isilon folks care to chime in ? Mr. Rob Peglar ?
Peter_Sero
1.2K Posts
0
September 30th, 2014 06:00
Thanks anyway for the warning -- the bottom line is to trust the Isilon-provided label more that the NIC-manufactorer-provided tiny digits. No idea (but curious) why the numbering has this twist. 10gige-1=cxgb1, 10gige-2=cxgb0 is also documented in KB 16654.
Peter_Sero
1.2K Posts
0
October 1st, 2014 06:00
Weren't the first 10GE NICs on Isilon nodes mounted horizontally? The twisted mapping might have been chosen so that 10gige-1 and 10gige-2 sit left to right as usual. Later the mapping from BSD interface names (cxgb*, matching driver/hw labeling) to OneFS names would never be changed in a model specific way, in order avoid confusion on this side... Not fully convinced
but have seen stranger things...
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
October 1st, 2014 07:00
Rob,
it would be ok if we were talking about starting count from 0 or 1, but that's not what we are talking about here.
Here i have unplugged twinax from port 1, LED is off
Now look what i see in OneFS WebUI, for people with common sense this should say 10gige-1.
Jeffey1
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
2.8K Posts
0
October 21st, 2014 01:00
Hi Dynamox,
I totally agree with you, there is space to improve. Why don't you give your feedback in the following ATE? Perhaps your suggestion will help to improve our product experience.
Ask The Expert: Continuous Improvement Through Customer Feedback
Peter_Sero
1.2K Posts
0
December 3rd, 2014 01:00
"EMC Manufacturing is investigating potential changes to the manufacturing process [...] in future node production."
KB 195063, out yesterday.
Jeffey1
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
2.8K Posts
0
December 3rd, 2014 04:00
Cool, I believe many Isilon customer are waiting for this potential changes. Currently, the solution is visually verifying the 10GBe network port numbering scheme using the lights on the back of the card in conjunction with the output of the 'ifconfig' command on the affected node. If a node is affected by this issue, they can removing or blacking out the 10GBe port number label on the chassis to prevent future confusion.
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
December 3rd, 2014 06:00
Jeffey,
you are quoting the KB Peter posted, that KB applies to specific set of nodes because "visually verifying the 10GBe network port numbering scheme" on my NL400 would get me into "oh crap i pulled the wrong cable" state, thus this discussion.
Jeffey1
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
2.8K Posts
0
December 3rd, 2014 18:00
Hi Dynamox,
This solution is recommended by KB195063, it is suitable for Isilon S210 and X410 nodes. I hope this solution can benefit for S210 and X410 customers. You suggestion is very helpful, EMC manufacturing is also investigating potential changes according to the KB information, thanks for your share.
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
December 3rd, 2014 20:00
solution ? You call this a solution: "If a node is affected by this issue, we recommend removing or blacking out the 10GBe port number label on the chassis to prevent future confusion"
This is poor engineering on Isilon part, if you are going to source your hardware components from different vendors you need to make sure it adheres to your standards. Don't ask customer to run around with a sharpie, scratching out labels.