> > > The question on usage case of bonding over separate > fabrics have been > > > brought to me several times and I gave this answer, > no-one ever tried > > > to educate me why its interesting, maybe you will do so... > > > > > > > I don't have good reason. I used two separated fabrics configuration > > because my lacking understanding on ethernet/ib bonding and the old > > methodology way of redundancy in ethernet & FC using two > separated fabrics. > > Yes, that was my guess, but, my hope was that you can provide some > reasoning for thismethodology way of redundancy which I understand you > were using also for SRP HA, so can you say anything in favor of the > way you were working till now? As I said, this problem of failure in > one side enforcing a failure in the other side, and worse, when there > are more than two players, eg one target and N initiators, fail-over > in one initiator forces the target to fail-over --> forces the other > N-1 initiators to fail-over!?
I think separate fabrics is a desirable, intuitive redundancy model. With storage each initiator fails over independently. Scott _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
