Makes sense. Thanks

PowerPath will complain, that's what i see when i drop a link on non-portchannel ISL between 9513 and 9124e

btw Ernes, remember you asked me to test FI and MDS connectivity ..where one option is multiple uplinks and another option port-channeled uplinks. You were correct, when one uplink was dropped, everything got pinned to the only remaining uplink ..but then when second uplink was re-enabled ..hosts remained pinned to the first uplink. They only way to "re-balance" it again was to reboot the box. Long story short, i am now using port-channels between FI and MDS (had to enable f-port channel-trunk on MDS)

I was wondering about that and thought you forgot. Thank you!

Can you elaborate more on this statement: "....if that links goes down your host will notice it...."

I did miss it, thank you! This is definitely a good reason to stick with port-channels.

you probably missed it when i updated our initial conversion, here it is

FCoE directly connected to UCS FI , uplinks b/w UCS FI and MDS

Dynamox,

What happens if the link that the host is pinned to gets flooded? Does the switch use the other link that's has more bandwitdh available? Also, when you said, "reboot the box", you mean the host or the switch?
Thanks.

honestly Daniel i do not know how MDS handles ISL utilization and when it decides to use one ISL over another.

I meant i rebooted the host, but that was specific to using Cisco UCS fiber interconnect.