yeah it seems to know which interface to use. here is my quick test.. no failure groups.
> em2: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 > ether 84:2b:2b:47:70:35 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) > RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) > RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 > TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) > TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > > em2:0: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.1.5 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 > ether 84:2b:2b:47:70:35 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) On 3/23/17 10:42 AM, Skylar Thompson wrote: > The only thing I can think of is you should be careful that you have > distinct CES groups so that addresses will failover to the right networks. > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:35:30AM -0500, Matt Weil wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Are there any issues with connecting CES nodes to multiple networks? ________________________________ The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
