02-20-2013 08:39 AM - edited 03-01-2019 10:53 AM
I've been reading about upgrading to version 2.1 & the biggest feature I've been wanting to try out is FC Zoning, however I've read 2 different articles that suggest that this feature is really only suggested for smaller deployments or dev/lab environments.
Has anyone using this feature came across any limitations? Is there anything lost functional or management wise by eliminating the San Switch & moving the FC Zoning to the FI's?
~Tara
02-20-2013 08:46 AM
Hi Tara,
There are customers who are using this feature in production and there are no such limitations or functionality loss. However this feature is only supported for direct attach storage and we do not recommend having the VSAN used for this direct attach to be allowed on a regular FC link, hence making the storage usable locally to UCS cluster blades only.
With the UCS FI running this feature you can consider it as a N5K or a 92xx MDS with a storage attached and couple of servers accessing the storage.
Hope this helps!
./Abhinav
02-21-2013 02:13 AM
1) Is it possible to connect a scenario like the aforementioned (UCS 2.1 with storage array directly connected) to a bigger Nexus/MDS SAN through an ISL?
2) Will the hosts in the MDS SAN access the storage array which is directly connected to the UCS?
3) Are there any storage replication, backup to VTLs, or other common SAN jobs not available in such scenario?
Thanks,
02-20-2013 09:03 AM
I've deployed a few 2.1 environments utilizing the new FC zoning feature to direct attach NetApp storage and found it to work very well. The FC ports do consume port licenses, so there's the potential that bringing your FC zoning down to the fabric interconnects could cost more in port licenses than a pair of 9100 series MDS switches.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide