OK, new machine (AMD64... oh yeah!) is up and running. I'm not going to go back and catch up on everything, but this one caught my eye.
We used NIC teaming for years. We had multitudes of problems, more associated with either our setup team not setting the NICs to 100/Full consistently, or the Network Engineers not doing the same. If this is NOT done, you will have issues. Also, there are specific problems that can crop up with ARP and virtual MACs that the teaming software creates. This becomes most apparent during troubleshooting, but can cause issues that only your Network Engineering team will see - and they really aren't worth irritating, because to a great degree - you need them more than they need you! :o) That being said - in 6 years of doing and managing NIC teaming, our stats showed that we had two NIC failures, which were easy to diagnose and resolve. Conversely, we had uncounted numbers of issues with ARP, MAC, and other teaming related issues that affected troubleshooting, problem resolution, and overall network (subnet or switch scope) performance when things went bad. Given that, we made a decision to bail on teaming (except for very specific systems that it had shown to be a true benefit - and DCs are far from a system that showed benefit) due to the lopsided number of issues caused as related to those actually solved. For me, that's the metric. If a solution is not really solving a problem, or is causing more problems than it is solving - why do it? It's basic Risk Management. However - YMMV. This is just my view. Rick -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kern Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:51 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] HP teaming They are member servers right now with no teaming. About to become DC's. Do you have anything against switch assisted load balancing? Also, which model catalyst did you have an issue with? Thanks a lot! On 8/17/05, Francis Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had great success using nic teaming on all my DCs running on hp > Proliant hardware. They were all configured for FT. Make sure the > network side of things fully supports it though, we had to upgrade a few > catalyst switches for this to work correctly (I think it was an ARP > issue) > > I'd suggest trying it on a member server first to make sure your > networking hardware is capable of supporting it correctly. > > One last thing, are those DCs currently in place or you're considering > nic teaming for future deployments? > > Thanks, > Francis > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kern > Sent: August 17, 2005 9:24 AM > To: activedirectory > Subject: [ActiveDir] HP teaming > > Any for or against Hp nic teaming on DC's? > Also which type would you use(if any)? Fault tolerence or load > balancing? > > thanks > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
