On 02/10/2012 05:54 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Yea, I gave up on bonding, ended up just using eth1. But every tutorial
> I found had added eth0 and eth1 as interfaces to br0, thus sharing the
> bridge so to speak.
Those tutorials were documenting the manner in which you can set up a
transparent Lin
Devin Reade wrote:
> --On Friday, February 10, 2012 04:40:59 PM -0500 m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> Devin Reade wrote:
>>
>>> or when some fool decides that they can unplug a network cable
>>> briefly so that they can move other cables around).
>>>
>> Now wait a minute - I would dearly love to disc
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
> Devin Reade wrote:
>
> > I do have clusters where bonding is in use but those have helped not so
> > much in avoiding NIC failures as they do in allowing the machines
> > to continue operating as the network team brings down part of the
> > redundant swi
--On Friday, February 10, 2012 04:40:59 PM -0500 m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Devin Reade wrote:
>
>> or when some fool decides that they can unplug a network cable
>> briefly so that they can move other cables around).
>>
> Now wait a minute - I would dearly love to disconnect some cables we have
Devin Reade wrote:
> I do have clusters where bonding is in use but those have helped not so
> much in avoiding NIC failures as they do in allowing the machines
> to continue operating as the network team brings down part of the
> redundant switch network for maintenance (or to replace a failed sw
--On Friday, February 10, 2012 01:49:05 PM -0600 Les Mikesell
wrote:
> I suppose it is possible for a NIC to fail, but I can't recall actually
> ever seeing it. I've seen lots of complicated failover schemes introduce
> new problems and their own failure modes [...]
+1.
Redundancy is cool. Re
On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
entire ip block went out.
when I called datacenter they told me the router was under attack
and I
was like 'uh oh' and told them to just shut off my computer I would be
there to fix it. They did not believe me.
An hour later I was there and dele
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
> Nothing at all to do with bonding. Not at all.
> eth1 to br0 , eth0 to br0that's all.
> If that is possible, I see no reason for a bond at all.
> I just want to make sure if an NIC fails, the other one is still working
> while I am aslee
Bob,
I'd suggest you do some more reading on the purpose behind bonding
and bridging. It *sounds* like what you functionally need is
to have a server with a single route upstream, not acting as
a gateway, but where you want to be able to take a failure on
one of the upstream network connections w
/ =
/>/ Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote/>/
/>/ Nothing at all to do with bonding. Not at all.
/>/ eth1 to br0 , eth0 to br0that's all.
/>/ If that is possible, I see no reason for a bond at all.
/>/ I just want to make sure if an NIC fails, the other one is st
On 02/10/2012 04:25 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> /
> =
> Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote
>
> />/ Yea, I gave up on bonding, ended up just using eth1. But every tutorial
> />/ I found had added eth0 and eth1 as interfaces to br0, thus sharing the
> />/ bridge so to speak.
/
=
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote
/>/ Yea, I gave up on bonding, ended up just using eth1. But every tutorial
/>/ I found had added eth0 and eth1 as interfaces to br0, thus sharing the
/>/ bridge so to speak.
/>/ All the tutorials were for debian though, all the c
On 02/10/2012 02:54 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
> -
> Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote
> /Fri Feb 10 06:47:22 EST 2012/
>
> On 02/10/2012 12:54 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>> / so I gave up on bonding.
> />/ I found about 300 posts showing eth0 and eth1
Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote
> /Fri Feb 10 06:47:22 EST 2012/
>
> On 02/10/2012 12:54 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>>/ so I gave up on bonding.
> />/ I found about 300 posts showing eth0 and eth1 both pointing to br0
> (bridge)
> />/ as interfaces.
> />/ I followed them correctly,
i have several centos 5.x servers with bonding enabled. And none of them
have any problems.
I used this tutorial:
http://www.howtoforge.com/network_card_bonding_centos
I use mode=6.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
>
-
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote
/Fri Feb 10 06:47:22 EST 2012/
On 02/10/2012 12:54 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>/ so I gave up on bonding.
/>/ I found about 300 posts showing eth0 and eth1 both pointing to br0 (bridge)
/>/ as interfaces.
/>/ I
On 02/10/2012 11:18 AM, Tony Mountifield wrote:
> In article<4f345cd3.4060...@bobhoffman.com>,
> Bob Hoffman wrote:
>> so I gave up on bonding.
>> I found about 300 posts showing eth0 and eth1 both pointing to br0 (bridge)
>> as interfaces.
>> I followed them correctly, or so I thought.
>> I point
On 02/10/2012 12:54 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> so I gave up on bonding.
> I found about 300 posts showing eth0 and eth1 both pointing to br0 (bridge)
> as interfaces.
> I followed them correctly, or so I thought.
> I pointed both ethx to the bridge, restarted network and bam...!!!
Bonding and bridgi
In article <4f345cd3.4060...@bobhoffman.com>,
Bob Hoffman wrote:
> so I gave up on bonding.
> I found about 300 posts showing eth0 and eth1 both pointing to br0 (bridge)
> as interfaces.
> I followed them correctly, or so I thought.
> I pointed both ethx to the bridge, restarted network and bam...
so I gave up on bonding.
I found about 300 posts showing eth0 and eth1 both pointing to br0 (bridge)
as interfaces.
I followed them correctly, or so I thought.
I pointed both ethx to the bridge, restarted network and bam...!!!
entire ip block went out.
when I called datacenter they told me the ro
20 matches
Mail list logo
