Comments (3)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 69HC_Wayne_Monfries commented Permalink

A possible alternative approach to increasing the WWPN limit would be to instead look at supporting trunking of FC (and VFC) connections - similarly to how you can already trunk ports for ISL (Inter Switch) links. <br /> This may also solve Pathing issues and make Server, Storage Host, SVC and SAN Switch configuration simpler for highly virtualised environments, since it could provide full redundancy and better available bandwidth for load levelling across virtual and physical ports while reducing the number of WWPNs required and catering easier for the use of NPIV in virtualised environments. <br /> note that in the Pseries space NPIV allows Storage teams to directly map storage to virtual guests/lpars and eliminates the requirement for intermediate remapping of storage LUNs at the virtual host hypervisor level.

2 IljaCoolen commented Permalink

Hi Anthony, although this is an older post, I do have a question regarding the extra exposed WWPN's in case of LPAR Mobility. <br /> We have this in a 4-UP/4-Down kind of setup. So 4 ports are logged into the SVC nodes, and 4 are only used by LPAR Mobility. <div>&nbsp;</div> My question is, those 4 inactive/offline ports, do they still count as ports against the maximum WWPN limit per IOgrp or are only active/online ports counted? <div>&nbsp;</div> Regards.

3 avandewerdt commented Permalink

All defined WWPNs count against the limit.