Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
2 Posts
0
1223
February 12th, 2016 07:00
Networker VBA appliance DDBoost Failover.
We've recently found that our DD640 appliance (OS 5.4.6.0-503967) were setup without any failover or aggregation on it's 2 network ports - essentially 1 port was doing all the work and the other sat there totally dormant,
I've setup an ifgroup, which has now given us the benefit of increased bandwidth but resilience is still an issue.
After reading a lot of documents and forum threads I've found that ddboost plugin 3.0+ can use ' -failover' as an alternative hostname, that will give us the resilience we require, with the minimum of effort.
I've tested this with some backups, and when the primary address is unavailable (port disabled) networker 8.2 clients will carry on backing up direct to DD, whereas 8.1 and previous clients fall back to backing up via the storage node.
I've further tested with VBA jobs (V1.1.2.8 appliances) and this method of failover doesn't work - the backups will just fail.
According to the listing from 'ddboost show connection' on the DD appliance, the VBA is listed with plugin version 3.0.0.3-446710 - so in theory it should work.
Has anyone configure this method of failover on a VBA, or knows how to get this working?
(If this is more a Networker question I'm happy to repost there - it's hard to know whether it's specifically DDBoost related or Networker...)
References
https://community.emc.com/thread/203134?tstart=0 Excellent forum thread regarding the networker config
and https://russia.emc.com/collateral/TechnicalDocument/docu57271.pdf pg20 describes the alternative hostname method )


epaape
15 Posts
0
February 16th, 2016 05:00
Hi
wouldn't it be easier to create a virtual interface and build a balanced aggregate?
little111
2 Posts
0
February 17th, 2016 02:00
Thanks for your response,
It's not entirely clear from the guide I've found (https://community.emc.com/docs/DOC-30141), but it suggests there is some configuration required on the switches. We are a Cisco house and this hints at etherchannel needing to be configured.
The problem with this is we can't configure an etherchannel across switches. As we only have 2 NIC's in the appliance, we would have to connect to a single switch and then not have gained any resilience, yet added complexity.
Happy to be wrong, but I haven't been able to find any documentation that confirms either way