Never mind separate service where are you booting the guests from now? The internal disks? And their data is where? I certainly applaud getting away from Fiber Channel. The alternatives I know are NFS and iSCSI. While the 74x0 storage servers do provide that you can do it yourself with Solaris 10. I would recommend kerberized nfs for security. Solaris 10u9 supports both targets and initiators for iSCSI but I have yet to try. It makes a lot of sense where you have some 10Ge uplinks for your storage server with gigabit or 1Ge for clients. Infiniband is of course a wonderful option as well (Exadata connects to its storage server on infiniband ). The advantage of 10Ge is no need for new NICs if you serve storage from either a T3 or M-series or current generation Intel Xeon servers.
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: Octave Orgeron <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Julien Gabel <[email protected]> Sent: Sun Apr 03 09:55:05 2011 Subject: Re: [ldoms-discuss] Request help - Ldom with alternate IO domain I have several T5440's which I'm in the process of standing up an IO domain in addition to the master domain. I've seen some things about how to get around the issue where the SAS controller is on set of pci controllers and the onboard nics are on the other. I seem to recall that Solaris once had a feature that allowed a host to do a network disk-less boot. Has anyone given this a try? I wondered as I recently ran across some documentation for doing this with Solaris 10, and was thinking that I might want to try an add a second service domain without going to the expense of a SAN FC adapter. Ben On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Octave Orgeron <[email protected]> wrote: > That is correct. If you configure a secondary service domain and spread out > your > I/O and multipathing for your guests between them, you can have redundancy for > control domain failures or maintenance. FYI, even if the control domain were > to > go away, the guests will continue to run and will attempt to queue up I/O > requests so that they can be processed by the control domain when it comes > back. > > > You are also correct that the secondary service domain should have either a > SCSI/SAS or FC HBA to connect to external storage as the T-series SAS > controller > is only on one PCI-E switch and not partitionable. > > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Octave J. Orgeron > Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant > Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com > E-Mail: [email protected] > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Julien Gabel <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 11:56:58 AM > Subject: Re: [ldoms-discuss] Request help - Ldom with alternate IO domain > > Hi, > >>> Can a guest domain with storage and network available through alternate >>> IO domain also survive after control domain goes down? > >> Yes, that is the reason for creating a second I/O domain. You do not provide >> details of your configuration, but typically when you create the alternate >> I/O >> domain it is created so that it does not share any resource from the primary. > > Interesting. I though that the processor, memory, LDC and such other things > are only available through the control domain, and that this was a problem. > So, > it seems that if you don't want or need to change domains configuration, this > special domain is "not needed" for other things that the I/O parts and can be > rebooted without impact on guest domains (properly configured with an > alternate > I/O domain)? > > It would be nice to have clear guidance for this kind of a little bit > complex LDom > configurations, particularly with the new T3 servers (as can be found > in the LDom > Community CookBook). > >> So it would be created from its own PCI bus and have separate boot disks >> and network devices. > > For the alternate I/O domain to be fully redundant, you mean the separate boot > disks not to be provided locally, but from SAN maybe? (I can't find a > T-Series > where each of the two (or more) buses provide internal disk drives.) > > -- > julien. > http://blog.thilelli.net/ > _______________________________________________ > ldoms-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > ldoms-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss > _______________________________________________ ldoms-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss _______________________________________________ ldoms-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss
