Hi [NAME] Modesto,   Both guides are correct, it only depends on the administrator's preference to how it needs to be cabled.    For a better easy installation, you can follow the first guide you have attached: [URL]
Hey guys, I'm not sure how to connect and define the iSCSI IPs in a scenario with 2 hosts with 2 ports each, directly connected to the ME5.In the deployment guide ([URL] it shows the following information for connecting the Storage in Direct Atacched mode with 2 hosts (page 34):Host 1 - Port 0 > Controller A port 0Host 1 - Port 1 > Controller B port 0Host 2 - Port 0 > Controller A port 2Host 2 - Port 1 > Controller B port 2 In the example of IP addresses for iSCSI, in the deployment guide it shows as follows (page 31 and 55):Host 1 - Port 0 > ip on subnet 1Host 1 - Port 1 > ip on subnet 2Host 2 - Port 0 > ip on subnet 1Host 2 - Port 1 > ip on subnet 2 But for the Storage ports, both ports 0 and 2 of controller A, and ports 0 and 2 of controller B are in the same subnet (subnet 1). Searching a little more, I found a Best Practices document ([URL] in it the connection of the servers with the storage are on different ports, as an example the first server from bottom to top is as follows: Host 1 - Port 0 > Controller A port 0Host 1 - Port 1 > Controller B port 3 That way, a port for each host would be in a different subnet, following the configuration suggested in the deployment guide. There is the doubt, which of the 2 ways should I follow to deploy this storage?If I follow the Deployment Guide's connection model, I'll need to put the hosts' IPs all on the same subnet, both port 0 and port 1. If I follow the best practices manual procedure I'll have each host port in one different subnet, thus following the most common way when we deploy using switch attached. I thank you all. (Sorry for the English by Google Translator).
ME5 Direct Attached