Just a reminder, though.... I believe you have to have both load balacing
NIC's plugged into the same switch, otherwise it will freak out. This
doesn't
protect you from a switch outage....
This was the case when I last used this stuff, at least....
"Elijah Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
811EE070004ED411A3EB00A0CC21482203B7E6@DIGITALRAGENT">news:811EE070004ED411A3EB00A0CC21482203B7E6@DIGITALRAGENT...
> Intel pro nics are good. But I prefer the adaptec nics. Not only does it
do
> failover but it does port aggregation. Where you could have their 4 port
nic
> card all with one ip address and the card doing load balancing to the
> server. We use all of these on our database and web servers at work. We
use
> the 2 port nic cards for the file servers. Just my thoughts.
> http://www.adaptec.com/products/datasheets/portaggregation.html
> These cards do work under linux/unix but takes a bit of configuration to
get
> it to work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bharat Suneja [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 8:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: CISCO SWITCH
>
>
> If you use dual-port NICs you can configure them to have the same IP
address
> as a part of a Fault Tolerant Team (Intel Pro 100 dual-port NICs).
>
> Bharat Suneja
>
> "Iohan Reyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ahh...understood. Is there special software that allows two NICs to
have
> > the same IP address to implement a "true" failover? Because to me, two
> > separate NICs with different IP addresses isn't a failover.
> >
> > If this is the case, ANY switch should do the job because the failover
is
> > actually occuring at the server, not at the switch...correct?
> >
> >
> > At 05:22 PM 10/9/2000 -0400, Chris Larson wrote:
> > >You would have to put 2 NICS in each server. It is actually quite
simple
> and
> > >we do it for all our servers.
> > >
> > >If you are talking about backbone switches, that to is a matter of
having
> 2
> > >large switches and running 1 cable from each to each closet pairr of
> > >switches.
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Iohan Reyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "Pushkar Shirolkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 4:40 PM
> > >Subject: RE: CISCO SWITCH
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ummm...I don't understand how you can provide a switch failover
> solution
> > >at
> > > > the access layer. So, if you have a 24-port switch, with
> theoretically 24
> > > > workstations plugged into it, you want it to failover to another
> switch if
> > > > it fails? You'd have to physically unplug all those cables and plug
> them
> > > > into the new switch! Or maybe you can have two NICs at each
> workstation
> > > > plug each of them into two separate switches....what mechanism would
> you
> > >use
> > > > to do the failover then - Spanning-Tree, RIP?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of
> > > > Pushkar Shirolkar
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 7:36 AM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Re: CISCO SWITCH
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hi,
> > > > thanx for the reply .....
> > > > but i want the switch failover solution .. not the backbone failover
> ..
> > >what
> > > > if the switch itself fails .. does it failover to another switch ...
> does
> > >it
> > > > have any specific failover port ?
> > > >
> > > > Pushkar
> > > >
> > > > Bob Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > 3524xl series has some redundancy functions to it if you are
> refering to
> > > > > backbone failover problems. ie using 2 gbic cards to different
> backbone
> > > > > connections and such.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also has the router IOS built in which has it's own pro's and
con's
> > > > associated
> > > > > to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pushkar Shirolkar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i have a requirement that says that i need to have a redundant
> cisco
> > > > switch
> > > > > > .. i.e. there is a LAN and the if the switch fails .. the other
> switch
> > > > > > should take over. this is possible in the cisco 6000 series of
> > >switches
> > > > ...
> > > > > > but is there some lower end solution .. that costs less and also
> my
> > > > > > requirement of ports on the switch is also less ... say about 24
> ports
> > > > ...
> > > > > > is there any product available which does so .. in 3500 or 2900
> series
> > >?
> > > > > > like using ISL (inter-switch link) .. but for the lower end
> switches
> > >...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please reply ASAP
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanx
> > > > > > Pushkar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information
> go to
> > > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com
> > > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information
go
> to
> > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com
> > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go
to
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go
to
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> >
> > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > _________________________________
> > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> _________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> _________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
