#Does it make sense to connect the two nodes in a FAS2750 via their SAS ports?

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

old coyote
#

...if you only have internal disks in the chassie? I remember back in the days, it made sense, but what about the "newer" systems?

#

....if you look at "node run -command storage show disk -p" you have no secondary path without the cables attached, if you attach them, you "gain" an additional path... so the system does not complain about it, but does it make any difference in terms of performance or redundancy? It is not shown on the official "quick quide" for cabling... so go figure?

runic quartz
old coyote
#

As I mentioned it works fine with or without, the question was if it makes any difference in terms of performance or redundancy...

chilly obsidian
#

Well yes, it's one path more redundant to your internal disks. But I agree that generally it's not needed. I can't remember any case where only the backplate died but the node stayed alive so you would need the additional connection to the partner node.

Regarding performance: If you're not using SSDs, no difference with or without the additional SAS cabling. If you have 24x SSDs internally I can imagine it's possible to find negligible peak differences during benchmarks.

I wouldnt really care. If you have the cables cable them, if not that's OK too.

jolly raft
#

If we install new systems we usually order two SAS cables with them (they cost nothing in a project) just for the theoretically higher redundancy.... but yeah, it's not really required anymore

merry vault
#

We used to include them by default, dropped that at some point in the A200/FAS2600 from memory. There is no point imo

old coyote
#

Well is does remove four red ports on the hardware overview that the customer doesn't have to worry about 😉 I guess you cannot disable the SAS ports like the network ports so they become black/gray... maybe a feature request 😉