FAS8300 is mainly DR Snapmirror target, and C400 will be remote copy for backups via backup application. Both are basically maxed out on how much storage can be attached (except c400 now supports 30TB disks 😦 ) - we already have the switch needed for clustering them, since the c400 has 4 disk shelves (cisco 9336) - so any input would be helpful.
#Pro/Con of adding C400 to Existing FAS8300 in a cluster, or keep them separate.
1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
Pro - Single management interface, flexability to consume storage on other controller/tier.
Con - C400 then needs snapmirror interfaces/ports, longer patch/upgrade cycle
Probably a thing to talk to your account team about. When you start getting into many-node clusters it can be a huge pain to manage, but 4 nodes isn't horrible.
We have a 12 node AFF mixed with a400,a800,c400s -
our account team was recently changed (layoffs), so I don't know if we'd get much value asking them.
I'll email them now, but any suggestions/feedback here is still helpful
Honestly I think you laid it out...
What are you using for backups?
And what protocol?
Hmm. I wonder if there is an IMT thing for that?
Maybe certification of new ONTAP versions might take a little bit of time, but if you wait a bit it should be fine.
Right now we are 9.13.1p7 - only big feature we need is NVMe-OF Deallocate/Trim/Delete (really shocked this wasn't a launch feature) - but only on the 12 node cluster really. And as long as it supports snapmirror to the older build at this 2nd site, we should be fine (as far as I can think of).
one big con i can think of is - if you have a 4 node and some reason the 8300 goes offline and it was holding quorm, the remaining 2 node C400 could not elect a new tie breaker on the remaining nodes. so it would be offline too.
If it's a DR target, i would keep it seperate.
I’m with Mike. It’s another failure domain and for backups, that’s a good thing. You can also be more granular on access controls for administrators