SSE Feedback on Remove Fibre Channel HBA

[RSGtheSSE]

Page: Remove Fibre Channel HBA

Under the section titled "What you’ll need" the 5th bullet down states, "You have removed the controller from the cabinet or rack." I recently performed this procedure under NetApp Technical Case #2009549668 and ran into an issue where we were unable to completely remove the controller from the rack due to an environmental obstruction (photo attached).

By simply pulling the controller out to the LOCKED position I was able to remove the cover and perform the card replacement. So it's not necessarily required to completely remove the controller from the chassis for a simple Fibre HBA replacement.

This seems like an opportunity to either adjust the verbiage here to include something along the lines of "it is RECOMMENDED to completely remove the controller from the chassis but not necessary" or remove the step all together since the HBA can be accessed and replaced from the extended / locked position.

Please advise.

[RSGtheSSE]

[netapp-madkat]

Hi @RSGtheSSE

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I confess I chuckled when I saw your most illuminating photo. "environmental obstruction" indeed. It's a good thing that post wasn't any closer to the rack.

I'm glad you were able to perform the maintenance. I'll see what we can do to amend our instructions.

Thanks,

Kathy Maddox
Principal technical writer
StorageGRID information engineering

[RSGtheSSE]

[heart] SantosGarcia, Richard reacted to your message:

…

________________________________ From: Kathy Maddox ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 8:35:40 PM To: NetAppDocs/storagegrid-116 ***@***.***> Cc: SantosGarcia, Richard ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [NetAppDocs/storagegrid-116] SSE Feedback on Remove Fibre Channel HBA (Issue #49) NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi @RSGtheSSE<https://github.com/RSGtheSSE> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I confess I chuckled when I saw your most illuminating photo. "environmental obstruction" indeed. It's a good thing that post wasn't any closer to the rack. I'm glad you were able to perform the maintenance. I'll see what we can do to amend our instructions. Thanks, Kathy Maddox Principal technical writer StorageGRID information engineering — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#49 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5CCGC3G77ABIFWXG6YX2JTXEVQBZANCNFSM6AAAAAAXXPL6QU>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[RSGtheSSE]

This came back up in today's SSE meeting with another HBA replacement. We're hoping to have the verbiage adjusted here so it reads something along the lines of, "You have extended the controller to the locked position or completely removed the controller from the cabinet or rack" instead of just, "You have removed the controller from the cabinet or rack" as this is a bit misleading.

We also discussed and wanted to bring awareness to the current StoragreGRID racking schemes as they make it very difficult to service with the smaller controllers sandwiched in between the two larger/protruding shelves. Attempting to reach the fibers and other cables can be quite difficult, and with the current way it connects engineers are actually damaging fibers to the point where support center is paying to ship replacements.

Could the solution be as simple as racking the controllers with all the shelves below? Or perhaps the StorageGRID documentation team knows of a better way to rack the systems in such a manner that would maximize space for serviceability and a better overall customer experience?

[netapp-madkat]

Hi,

So sorry. I forgot to create a StorageGRID Mantis to track this change. We'll need to get more details from our experts on how to revise these steps.

I'm creating the bug report now.

Thanks,

Kathy