vestal mauve
The question is about the limitation of SM Active Sync ( BC ) ; can i have a clustered 4 nodes C800 on one side and use SM Active Sync ( BC ) ?
From the reference doc i can only find HA piar to HA pair not multiple HA paris to multiple HA pairs .
https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/ontap/snapmirror-active-sync/architecture-concept.html#symmetric-activeactive
pastel orchid
yes, currently: "Only two-node HA clusters are supported"
https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/ontap/snapmirror-active-sync/prerequisites-reference.html
But I heard it's on the roadmap to support bigger clusters.
pure heath
This is definitely on the roadmap. That's just about all I am allowed to confirm.
lunar sigil
+1 to the desire for this to be expanded.
I have many use cases (Epic file shares anyone?) and a 6n cluster is 2 ha pair too many
pure heath
I can update this thread soon 😉
lunar sigil
I can update this thread soon 😉
There's no pressure from me. Colleagues and I were discussing it from an insight session on it with Databases and epic came up is all 🙂
idle elk
+1 to the desire for this to be expanded.
I have *many* use cases (Epic file sh...
interesting, almost all of our customers (99% I'd guess) are 2-node clusters 😅 people over here are too stingy to buy cluster switches I guess 🤷♂️
lunar sigil
interesting, almost all of our customers (99% I'd guess) are 2-node clusters 😅 ...
1 a800 2 8700 pair
1 c800 2 8700 pair
Then a smattering of a300's I'm begging to replace
Before this it was 10n (a300x2 and 8200x3 again. Pairs)
vestal mauve
interesting, almost all of our customers (99% I'd guess) are 2-node clusters 😅 ...
it is not the switches it is the ontap license ; they buy base license and with clustering you can move volumes arround no need for snapmirror ( imagine you use vmware and have block datastores FC/ISCSI etc and have a 3rd party vm backup solution like veeam with retention on 3rd party storage or ontapS3 since 9.14.x it works like a charm even with retention locking ) . Regarding switches SN2100 were cheap and reliable ( with some exception or small issues in joining A400 with A800 because RCF does not have explicit settings for "fast-linkup on" on ports ) .
idle elk
There's only one license these days (ONTAP One) anyway. okay two if you count ONTAP base but usually you don't want that one.
And the ONTAP capacity license is the same no matter if you have one cluster or multiples, it's purely based on raw capacity
vestal mauve
ontap one is a node base capacity restrictive ; from what i can tell you get 10units per TB ; from the demo unit i have the file looks like this :
"capacity": "230",
"licenseScope": "node",
"licenseProtocol": "ONTAP_ONE_ENC_CAP_3",
"enforcementAttributes": [
{
"name": "DO-Capacity-Warn",
"metric": "5:1",
"msg": "You've exceeded your capacity limit. Add capacity to your license to ensure your product use is unaffected.",
"operatingPolicy": "na"
},
{
"name": "DO-Capacity-Enforce",
"metric": "6:1",
"msg": "You've exceeded your capacity limit. Add capacity to your license to ensure your product use is unaffected.",
"operatingPolicy": "ndo"
}
so it has an 6:1 limit ; old licensing did not have a hard cap limit .
idle elk
yes but this doesn't change if you build one cluster or two. the capacity licenses cost the same.
That's why I said the only (significant) price difference comes from the cluster switches (and maybe some sales shenanigans like promos or other stuff but that can happen in both ways too)
