This post is more than 5 years old
1 Rookie
•
48 Posts
0
1420
August 25th, 2014 13:00
Giving a host additional ports...
Our standard is 4-port port groups. I have a host that started with a 4-port portgroup but now I want to map additional ports to the host but I don't want to add ports to the portgroup. What I would prefer is to create a second masking view for the host using the same storage group but assigning a different gort group.
So the end result will be that the host has two masking views; the original with the original port group and a new masking view with the new port group.
Question: Is this a reasonable approach to the problem of adding ports? If not, then what is the best way to do so?
Thanks,
Vic
No Events found!
dynamox
9 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
0
August 25th, 2014 14:00
works fine
M_Salem
213 Posts
1
August 25th, 2014 13:00
Adding to @Dynamox, The second masking view creation will fail if the SG is associated with FAST policy. SE will allow a device to belong to only one SG associated with a FAST policy.
Also, Why do you want to do this, Have you also reached the limit of 4096 used addresses of the FA CPU ?
Hope that helps
Mohammed Salem
dynamox
9 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
1
August 25th, 2014 13:00
we had to do just that because we reached a limit of 4096 devices per CPU, so we ended up creating a second masking view for systems and included another port group that consisted of 4 ports.
vic_engle
1 Rookie
•
48 Posts
0
August 25th, 2014 14:00
Thanks guys. I'll follow up here after testing the idea.
M_Salem
213 Posts
0
August 25th, 2014 14:00
I was thinking that SE may require a UNIQUE combination of SG/PG/IG so if that is the case then it should not work, However since @Dynamox mentioned that it is working then i totally believe it will work.
He is a walking SE guide + VNX +...+...
So yes, There is no impact in terms of performance of doing so (if SE would allow it). Alternatively, Why you do not think about migrating the workload completely to new Ports using the same PG if the other ports are heavily hammered (this can be done online). may be they are hammered by other hosts devices mapped to them.I do not have the full box details but the short answer is Yes, There is no problem with this.
Hope this helps
Mohammed Salem
vic_engle
1 Rookie
•
48 Posts
0
August 25th, 2014 14:00
No, it has nothing to do with a device limit. It has to do with the amount of load we see from the host. We have a small number of hosts that generate a lot of IOPS and when they do, they drive utilization on the FA too high. So for those hosts we'd like to address the problem by spreading out the load over 8 ports instead of just 4.
Mohammed, with regard to the FAST association, we won't be adding the LUNs to another storage group, we'll just be using the same storage group in a different masking view. See below to illustrate what I want to do.
MV1 = HOST_A_SG + HOST_A_IG + PORTGROUP1
MV2 = HOST_A_SG + HOST_A_IG + PORTGROUP2
Any issue with doing this?
dynamox
9 Legend
•
20.4K Posts
0
August 25th, 2014 15:00
same IG
M_Salem
213 Posts
0
August 25th, 2014 15:00
@Dynamox, different IG name?