This post is more than 5 years old
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
1022
Need to create a dual channel portchannel from a single ISL, preferably non disruptive
Hello there,
I'm facing the following challenge: I have 2 Cisco MDS9222i switches connected over a single ISL and I need to expand the link to a two channel portchannel. If possible I'd like to do this non disruptively.
I was thinking of doing it like this:
- insert the new SFPs in both switches
- create a new portchannel between the new SFPs
- disable the old ISL
- add the "old" SFPs to the new portchannel
As far as I can remember creating a portchannel is disruptive, so going directly from a single ISL to a 2 channel portchannel seems not the way to do this. Any tips?
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
June 3rd, 2013 04:00
setup new port-channel that consists of new ports only, once that is online add existing ISL ports to this port-channel. Yes the old ISL ports will be disabled when you add them to the channel but port-channel is still online. Once you add them go ahead and "no shut" and you are in business.
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
June 3rd, 2013 04:00
And the most important question: will traffic be disrupted?
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
June 3rd, 2013 04:00
i have had mixed results, in one instance PowerPath did complain that it lost connectivity but it quickly re-established it. In another instance i did not get anything from SRDF, it kept on running. What's going over the link, MirrorView traffic ?
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
June 3rd, 2013 05:00
Yep, MV exclusively!
An alternative is to admin fracture, create the portchannel and synchronise the groups again.
RRR
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
5.7K Posts
0
June 3rd, 2013 06:00
I have mixed feeling about that, as far as I've seen is that LUNs aren't tresspassed and eventually a mirror group gets system fractured. I haven't seen LUNs tresspassing to the other SP if a MV connection (briefly) fails. And during the time between failing a path and system fracturing the hosts using the primary LUNs will notice delays, so I don't want to do that.
I already wrote an RFC saying the creation of the portchannel will be disruptive and that I will admin fracture all mirror groups. I don't want to take any chances.
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
0
June 3rd, 2013 06:00
what if you do one fabric at a time, does MV handle failover properly ?
dynamox
2 Intern
2 Intern
•
20.4K Posts
1
June 3rd, 2013 07:00
i have no experience with MV, like you said better safe than sorry.