[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: toasters
Subject: Re: vifmgr.lifs.noredundancy
From: TAYLOR DANIEL <dantaylor () ntlworld ! com>
Date: 2017-04-20 14:26:31
Message-ID: 757052194.125775.1492698391442.JavaMail.open-xchange () oxbe12 ! tb ! ukmail ! iss ! as9143 ! net
[Download RAW message or body]
------=_Part_125774_1337320913.1492698391429
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi André,
Thanks. That actually makes perfect sense.
Dan
> On 20 April 2017 at 15:10 "André M. Clark" <andre.m.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For intercluster and node management LIFs, if you're not setting up
> redundant ports, which most don't, simply modify the failover-policy for those
> LIFs to disabled and the alerts will stop.
>
> Sent from BlueMail http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=9531
> On Apr 20, 2017, at 07:20, "s.eno" <s.eno@me.com mailto:s.eno@me.com >
> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, very annoying. Getting these alerts for node
> > > management lifs, snapmirror lifs (built on 4 phys ports), etc.
> >
> > We're confident in our redundancy and don't want to change things
> > just to make bogus alert emails stop.
> >
> > Wondering if there's a way in 9.1 to manage these alerts coming from
> > the nodes. Currently getting inundated with failed login attempt emails as
> > infosec does their vulnerability scans.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:40 AM, TAYLOR DANIEL <dantaylor@ntlworld.com
> > mailto:dantaylor@ntlworld.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Since the dawn of its inception by another third party we have
> > > been getting these messages for both intercluster LIFs:
> > >
> > >
> > > Filer: ntap-a
> > >
> > > Time: Sun, Apr 16 00:15:05 2017 +0100
> > >
> > > Severity: LOG_ALERT
> > >
> > > Message: vifmgr.lifs.noredundancy: No redundancy in the
> > > failover configuration for 1 LIFs assigned to node "ntap-a". LIFs:
> > >
> > > uk:ntap_a_intercluster
> > >
> > > Description: This message occurs when one or more logical
> > > interfaces (LIFs) are configured to use a failover policy that implies
> > > failover to one or more ports but have no failover targets beyond their
> > > home ports. If any affected home port or home node is offline or
> > > unavailable, the corresponding LIFs will be operationally down and unable
> > > to serve data.
> > >
> > > Action: Add additional ports to the broadcast domains or
> > > failover groups used by the affected LIFs, or modify each LIF's failover
> > > policy to include one or more nodes with available failover targets. For
> > > example, the "broadcast-domain-wide"
> > >
> > > failover policy will consider all failover targets in a
> > > LIF's failover group.
> > >
> > > Use the "network interface show -failover" command to
> > > review the currently assigned failover targets for each LIF.
> > >
> > > Source: vifmgr
> > >
> > > Index: 6740328
> > >
> > > [Note: This email message is sent using a deprecated event
> > > routing mechanism.
> > >
> > > For information, search the knowledgebase of the NetApp
> > > support web site for "convert existing event configurations in Data ONTAP
> > > 9.0."]
> > >
> > >
> > > This intercluster LIF is part of an IFGRP which is made up of
> > > two vlanned ports, so by definition is redundant.
> > >
> > > My question, is this a bug in the error reporting or is there
> > > some configuration which is not supported here?
> > >
> > > We have another cluster which is configured with standard
> > > vlanned ports per node as opposed to ifgrps and this doesn't seem to
> > > complain. Just not sure if this is a problem or not, or if it's something
> > > we can suppress?
> > >
> > > Running FAS8040, 9.1P2.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > Toasters mailing list
> > > Toasters@teaparty.net mailto:Toasters@teaparty.net
> > > http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
> > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Toasters mailing list
> > Toasters@teaparty.net
> > http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
> >
> > >
------=_Part_125774_1337320913.1492698391429
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" \
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
</head><body><p>Hi André,</p><p>Thanks.  That actually makes perfect \
sense.</p><p>Dan</p><p><br></p><blockquote type="cite">On 20 April 2017 at 15:10 \
"André M. Clark" <andre.m.clark@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br><div \
dir="auto">For intercluster and node management LIFs, if you're not setting up \
redundant ports, which most don't, simply modify the failover-policy for those \
LIFs to disabled and the alerts will stop. <br><br></div><div dir="auto"><!-- \
tmjah_g_1299s -->Sent from <!-- tmjah_g_1299e --><!-- tmjah_g_1299s --><a \
href="http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=9531">BlueMail</a><!-- tmjah_g_1299e --><!-- \
tmjah_g_1299s --> <!-- tmjah_g_1299e --></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, \
2017, at 07:20, "s.eno" <<a href="mailto:s.eno@me.com" \
target="_blank">s.eno@me.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote><div>Yes, very annoying. \
 Getting these alerts for node management lifs, snapmirror lifs (built on 4 phys \
ports), etc.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div \
id="AppleMailSignature">We're confident in our redundancy and don't want to \
change things just to make bogus alert emails stop.  </div><div \
id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Wondering if \
there's a way in 9.1 to manage these alerts coming from the nodes. \
 Currently getting inundated with failed login attempt emails as infosec does \
their vulnerability scans. <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Apr 20, \
2017, at 7:40 AM, TAYLOR DANIEL <<a \
href="mailto:dantaylor@ntlworld.com">dantaylor@ntlworld.com</a>> \
wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>Hello,</p><p>Since the dawn of \
its inception by another third party we have been getting these messages for both \
intercluster LIFs:</p><p><br></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Filer: ntap-a</p><p \
style="padding-left: 30px;">Time: Sun, Apr 16 00:15:05 2017 +0100</p><p \
style="padding-left: 30px;">Severity: LOG_ALERT</p><p style="padding-left: \
30px;">Message: vifmgr.lifs.noredundancy: No redundancy in the failover configuration \
for 1 LIFs assigned to node “ntap-a”. LIFs:</p><p style="padding-left: \
30px;">uk:ntap_a_intercluster</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Description: This \
message occurs when one or more logical interfaces (LIFs) are configured to use a \
failover policy that implies failover to one or more ports but have no failover \
targets beyond their home ports. If any affected home port or home node is offline or \
unavailable, the corresponding LIFs will be operationally down and unable to serve \
data.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Action: Add additional ports to the broadcast \
domains or failover groups used by the affected LIFs, or modify each LIF's \
failover policy to include one or more nodes with available failover targets. For \
example, the “broadcast-domain-wide”</p><p style="padding-left: \
30px;">failover policy will consider all failover targets in a LIF's failover \
group.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Use the “network interface show \
-failover” command to review the currently assigned failover targets for each \
LIF.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Source: vifmgr</p><p style="padding-left: \
30px;">Index: 6740328</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">[Note: This email message is \
sent using a deprecated event routing mechanism.</p><p style="padding-left: \
30px;">For information, search the knowledgebase of the NetApp support web site for \
"convert existing event configurations in Data ONTAP \
9.0."]</p><p><br></p><p>This intercluster LIF is part of an IFGRP which is made \
up of two vlanned ports, so by definition is redundant. </p><p>My question, is \
this a bug in the error reporting or is there some configuration which is not \
supported here? </p><p>We have another cluster which is configured with standard \
vlanned ports per node as opposed to ifgrps and this doesn’t seem to complain. \
Just not sure if this is a problem or not, or if it’s something we can \
suppress?</p><p>Running FAS8040, \
9.1P2.</p><p>Thanks</p><p>Dan</p></div></blockquote><blockquote \
type="cite"><div>_______________________________________________<br>Toasters mailing \
list<br><a href="mailto:Toasters@teaparty.net">Toasters@teaparty.net</a><br><a \
href="http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters">http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters</a><br></div></blockquote><hr><pre \
class="blue"><br>Toasters mailing list<br>Toasters@teaparty.net<br><a \
href="http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters">http://www.teaparty.net/mailm \
an/listinfo/toasters</a><br></pre></blockquote></div></blockquote><p><br> </p></body></html>
------=_Part_125774_1337320913.1492698391429--
_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic