Hey there,
we just deployed CA 6.1 and had it running against some of our clusters.
Some of the findings here are "interesting", f.ex.:
Warning:
A minimum of 2 Cluster LIFs should be configured and active.
This storage appliance has 0 cluster LIFs defined but only 0 is active. Cluster Interconnect Bandwidth is compromised and cluster LIF redundancy is unavailable.
vs:
CLUSTER::> net int show -role cluster
(network interface show)
Logical Status Network Current Current Is
Vserver Interface Admin/Oper Address/Mask Node Port Home
----------- ---------- ---------- ------------------ ------------- ------- ----
Cluster
Node1_clus1 up/up 169.254.221.243/16 node1 e0a true
Node1_clus2 up/up 169.254.71.9/16 node1 e0b true
Node2_clus1
up/up 169.254.111.202/16 node2 e0a true
node2_clus2
up/up 169.254.213.249/16 node2 e0b true
4 entries were displayed.
What exactly is it checking here? Do I need to assign a new flag to those LIFs in order for CA to recognize them properly?
Informational:
Thin provisioning features are not enabled.
Thin Provisioning features are not enabled on following volumes: node1:node1_root Until "Volume Guarantees" are removed, thin provisioning is not enabled, therefore storage efficiency cannot be guaranteed.
Vs:
https://library.netapp.com/ecmdocs/ECMP1196981/html/GUID-38F008C4-3CAA-4C81-954D-C7B00EDC7A5D.html
"You should not use thin provisioning for root volumes."
Informational:
The node is configured as a single node cluster and is not saving configuration backups remotely.
Single node cluster configurations should save backup configuration files remotely to allow for recovery in the event of a node/root volume failure. In the event of a node failure, the cluster configuration will not be able to be recovered.
Vs:
CLUSTER::> cluster show
Node Health Eligibility
--------------------- ------- ------------
Node1 true true
Node2 true true
2 entries were displayed.
-> It also failed to recognize a two-node cluster, is there a flag it checks which I missed to set?
Anyone else experiencing issues like these?
Thanks,
Alexander Griesser
Head of Systems Operations
ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
E-Mail: AGriesser@anexia-it.com<mailto:AGriesser@anexia-it.com>
Web: http://www.anexia-it.com<http://www.anexia-it.com/>
Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler
Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601
we just deployed CA 6.1 and had it running against some of our clusters.
Some of the findings here are "interesting", f.ex.:
Warning:
A minimum of 2 Cluster LIFs should be configured and active.
This storage appliance has 0 cluster LIFs defined but only 0 is active. Cluster Interconnect Bandwidth is compromised and cluster LIF redundancy is unavailable.
vs:
CLUSTER::> net int show -role cluster
(network interface show)
Logical Status Network Current Current Is
Vserver Interface Admin/Oper Address/Mask Node Port Home
----------- ---------- ---------- ------------------ ------------- ------- ----
Cluster
Node1_clus1 up/up 169.254.221.243/16 node1 e0a true
Node1_clus2 up/up 169.254.71.9/16 node1 e0b true
Node2_clus1
up/up 169.254.111.202/16 node2 e0a true
node2_clus2
up/up 169.254.213.249/16 node2 e0b true
4 entries were displayed.
What exactly is it checking here? Do I need to assign a new flag to those LIFs in order for CA to recognize them properly?
Informational:
Thin provisioning features are not enabled.
Thin Provisioning features are not enabled on following volumes: node1:node1_root Until "Volume Guarantees" are removed, thin provisioning is not enabled, therefore storage efficiency cannot be guaranteed.
Vs:
https://library.netapp.com/ecmdocs/ECMP1196981/html/GUID-38F008C4-3CAA-4C81-954D-C7B00EDC7A5D.html
"You should not use thin provisioning for root volumes."
Informational:
The node is configured as a single node cluster and is not saving configuration backups remotely.
Single node cluster configurations should save backup configuration files remotely to allow for recovery in the event of a node/root volume failure. In the event of a node failure, the cluster configuration will not be able to be recovered.
Vs:
CLUSTER::> cluster show
Node Health Eligibility
--------------------- ------- ------------
Node1 true true
Node2 true true
2 entries were displayed.
-> It also failed to recognize a two-node cluster, is there a flag it checks which I missed to set?
Anyone else experiencing issues like these?
Thanks,
Alexander Griesser
Head of Systems Operations
ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
E-Mail: AGriesser@anexia-it.com<mailto:AGriesser@anexia-it.com>
Web: http://www.anexia-it.com<http://www.anexia-it.com/>
Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra?e 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Windbichler
Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601