HPE EVA Storage

Change zoning for CA over FCIP

 
Martien Korenblom
Frequent Advisor

Change zoning for CA over FCIP

I'm in the process of 'rezoning' fabrics.

Situation is:
- 2 EVA8100's on two locations
- 2 fabric's, each consisting of a 4/64 and a 4/32 connected bij two mpx110's over a shared 1Gbit link

Currently the zoning is setup in a very old-fashioned way (port based, zoned by OS), but it still working :).

I'd like to change it to pWWN based, single initiator zoning, but I'm still worrying about the zoning for replication in this heavy production environment.

My questions:
1. All EVA8100 ports are seen by the hosts, how risky is it removing 4 paths, when I'm implement dedicated CA-zoning? I'm running Windows 2003 (32 and 64-bit), ESX 3.5 and Solaris 9 and 10.
2. Is it possible/supported to create zones for CA on the FP3 and FP4 ports and still use all the ports for host access, as this is the least disruptive change?

Martien
I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem
5 REPLIES 5
Steven Clementi
Honored Contributor

Re: Change zoning for CA over FCIP

"1. All EVA8100 ports are seen by the hosts, how risky is it removing 4 paths, when I'm implement dedicated CA-zoning? I'm running Windows 2003 (32 and 64-bit), ESX 3.5 and Solaris 9 and 10."

It's not risky at all since all your hosts should have Multipath support. They will just not see 4 of the 8 paths. If you remove an "active" path, it should failover to another available path.


"2. Is it possible/supported to create zones for CA on the FP3 and FP4 ports and still use all the ports for host access, as this is the least disruptive change?"

It is certainly possible to create zones for both CA and Host access. "Supported" might depend upon how much replication you are actually doing.


Steven
Steven Clementi
HP Master ASE, Storage, Servers, and Clustering
MCSE (NT 4.0, W2K, W2K3)
VCP (ESX2, Vi3, vSphere4, vSphere5, vSphere 6.x)
RHCE
NPP3 (Nutanix Platform Professional)
Martien Korenblom
Frequent Advisor

Re: Change zoning for CA over FCIP

Could you elaborate in my question 2 en your answer to that?

This because the CA configuration guide does not really state that it is a must, just a best practice.
I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem
Uwe Zessin
Honored Contributor

Re: Change zoning for CA over FCIP

From what I have been told, the EVA is pretty flexible and self-adapting in CA-configurations. If using FP3 and FP4 for replication is recommended in the implementation guide and this is OK for you, then I would follow the recomendation. It really helps if support is looking for an escape reason...

Removing paths from VMware ESX servers is pretty transparent - change the zoning in one fabric, rescan the affected adapter and verify the result. Repeat in the next fabric.

Windows servers, I would at least reboot after the change and verifying the result. I have never really tested it, but I think the paths will stick until a reboot.

Don't know how in detail how Solaris configures and maintains FC devices, but it looks complicated. Can't help here, sorry.
.
McCready
Valued Contributor

Re: Change zoning for CA over FCIP

The main reason for dedicated CA controller ports is to avoid any port contention that might impact performance, where CA i/O's might conflict with the host I/O's. If you don't have that problem, you don't have a problem to fix.

However, you might be avoiding one in the future by implementing that type of zoning.

I think your risk is small if you do and validate one fabric at a time, and of course, do it off-hours just in case you mess up.
check out evamgt.wetpaint.com and evamgt google group
Martien Korenblom
Frequent Advisor

Re: Change zoning for CA over FCIP

The dedicated CA controller ports part is clear to me, I will zone the SAN like that.

I don't think i'll remove the current paths from the servers, as this might be disruptive to the environment at this moment. Maybe later :)

So I will still have host I/O and replication I/O over the FP3 and FP4 ports. I can't find anything about support-issues with that, so I guess it is okay in this situation.
I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem