The last few generations of HP ProLiant systems have featured an option to share the ILO functionality with the first network interface. I'm in a situation where per-port costs on the switch I'm using the a co-lo facility are fairly high. I can save a port per server by not using the dedicated ILO interface. Is there any disadvantage to doing so? I've run with it on a few systems, and it works, but I'm sure there's a reason it's not the standard. I'd appreciate any insight.
I believe that you need to weigh up the pro's and cons of the sharing the hardware.
Sharing the NIC would allow you to save a little bit of money on your colo costs which is a good thing, however by going down a shared ILO route you should consider:
- Utilisation of the first NIC, if you have a heavy network load how will you access the server via the ILO? If you have a separate NIC then you have the full bandwidth to use to access the server remotely.
- A hardware failure of the first NIC will also nix your ability to remotely manage the server, this may not be something that matters much to you but in my experience (With Dell iDRAC cards) having the second NIC is a benefit when things go really wrong.
At the end of the day I can't give concrete advice, its just a decision you need to make based on your business needs and available funds.
Another disadvantage (don't know if this applies to all iLO versions and all Proliant models) is that when iLO is on shared port, it cannot communicate with host computer. So server can't even ping its own iLO IP address, although all other devices can - this is because of how this NIC sharing works.
There is another issue as well, in the current iLO 4 (version 2.40 Dec 02 2015) the "Shared Network Port currently does not support IPv6".
The most frustrating issue is here:
Virtual media disconnect in the middle of the OS installation mostly due to OS resetting the NIC while installation