How to configure Channel-Groups on separate switches for NetApp VIF

I have a NetApp 2520 I'll be using for a Hyper-V Cluster connected via iSCSI and have created a VIF (Lifgrp1) with interfaces e0a,e0b,e0c,and e0d on each controller. I also created VLANs Lifgrp1-2 (Management), Lifgrp1-64 (iSCSI1), and Lifgrp1-65 (iSCSI2).

I'll be connecting 2 interfaces from each NetApp to a Cisco 3750, and the other 2 to another Cisco 3750 that is uplinked with a fiber patch cable and a GBIC on each. I want to create 1 Port Channel for each controller. With these switches not stacked via a StackWise cable, is there a certain way that I need to create the 2 Port Channels so I make sure the teamed interfaces are acting as one logical interface on the switches? Do I create a Channel-Group 1 and Channel-Group 2 on each switch?

Rick GoodmanNetwork AdministratorAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Craig BeckCommented:
From the Cisco side, if the switches aren't stacked you can't use MEC so you have to connect all interfaces to the same switch per controller, or don't use Etherchannels at all.  Alternatively, you'd need 4 EtherChannels - 2 per switch/controller.
Rick GoodmanNetwork AdministratorAuthor Commented:
So I can connect all 4 interfaces from controller A to switch 1and create a port-channel group 1 and add all 4 interfaces to it using LACP? And then patch all interfaces from controller B to switch 2 and create a port-channel 2 and add controller B interfaces to it the same way? I know this probably isn't ideal but the controllers already have ACP configured and are in a HA Pair so I'm not sure it's a big deal, other than maybe spreading the load, which there won't be a bog load on these anyhow.
Craig BeckCommented:
Yes you can do that.  It's actually what I was going to suggest.  Now that you've mentioned that the controllers are configured in HA anyway it's exactly what I'd do.

You are also correct in that the only real issue here would probably be load-balancing, but if one switch failed you'd still have connectivity via one controller, so really it's going to work out just the same if you consider the EtherChannel load-balancing algorithm per link.

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Rick GoodmanNetwork AdministratorAuthor Commented:
Hey, thanks for the info. I appreciate it.
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.