On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 23:58 -0800, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> I don't know if that is such a great idea, as that would only test
> the switch that you are connected to.
Heatbeats (STP,CARP) and active sanity checking (Nagios, ifwatchd(8))
are the two main options.
Results may vary in every system/
lagg is ultimately a problem as a high-availability solution since most
switches do not support multi-switch 802.3ad yet, and most probably never well.
So you are limited to a single switch. So 802.3ad is good only for
aggregation, and not for high availability.
What about using STP or RS
Please wrap your mail before 80 columns.
On 2008-Dec-08 23:58:00 -0800, Tom Samplonius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Linux bonding driver supports probing the default gateway.
This is the same brokenness as Solaris IPMP. I agree that probing
an external IP address (probably, but not necessari
- "Brian A. Seklecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 08:03 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > On 2008-Dec-05 07:34:21 -0500, "Brian A. Seklecki"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Well ... name a price for the development; HA L1/L2 is a feature
> the
> > >community would gladl
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 08:03 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Dec-05 07:34:21 -0500, "Brian A. Seklecki"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Well ... name a price for the development; HA L1/L2 is a feature the
> >community would gladly sponsor the development of.
>
> net/ifstated covers at least so
On 2008-Dec-05 07:34:21 -0500, "Brian A. Seklecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well ... name a price for the development; HA L1/L2 is a feature the
>community would gladly sponsor the development of.
net/ifstated covers at least some of this.
>Also, Peter, you should put a page up on the FreeBSD
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 22:03 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >Thats unfortunate...
>
> I tend to agree.
>
> >bonding in Linux is capable of doing this and solaris too.
>
Well ... name a price for the development; HA L1/L2 is a feature the
community would gladly sponsor the development of.
Also, Pe
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 09:24:30PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Aug-12 18:55:52 +0800, Eugene Grosbein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Marian Hettwer wrote:
> >
> >> I'm using lagg(4) on some of our servers and I'm just wondering how the
> >> failover
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Marian Hettwer wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm using lagg(4) on some of our servers and I'm just wondering how the
> failover is implemented.
> The manpage isn't quite clear:
>
> failover Sends and receives traffic only through the master port.
> If
Hi Peter,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:03:07 +1000, Peter Jeremy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-Aug-12 13:43:29 +0200, Marian Hettwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> lagg is to handle failover at the physical layer for when one of your
>>> ether ports fails, or someone unplugs a cable. If I underst
Hi Max,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:00:18 +0200, Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thats unfortunate...
>> bonding in Linux is capable of doing this and solaris too.
>> Well then. At least everythings clear now. And in the end, clarifing
> things
>> was the reason for that mail thread :)
>
> You
On 2008-Aug-12 13:43:29 +0200, Marian Hettwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> lagg is to handle failover at the physical layer for when one of your
>> ether ports fails, or someone unplugs a cable. If I understand you
>>
>Thats unfortunate...
I tend to agree.
>bonding in Linux is capable of doing t
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 13:43:29 Marian Hettwer wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:30:12 +0100, Pete French
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> However, IMO lacp doesn't solve that problem. lacp is used for link
> >> aggregation, not failover.
> >
> > It does both - if one of the links
Hi Pete,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:30:12 +0100, Pete French
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> However, IMO lacp doesn't solve that problem. lacp is used for link
>> aggregation, not failover.
>
> It does both - if one of the links becomes unavailable then it will
> stop using it. We use this for failove
> As far as I can tell, not especially well :-(. It doesn't seem to detect
> much short of layer 1 failure. In particular, shutting down the switch
> port will not trigger a failover.
Are you using bce devices as your phsyical interfaces ? Take a look at
the thread from last week about ifconfig
> However, IMO lacp doesn't solve that problem. lacp is used for link
> aggregation, not failover.
It does both - if one of the links becomes unavailable then it will
stop using it. We use this for failover and it works fine, the only
caveat being that your LACP device at the far end needs to look
On 2008-Aug-12 18:55:52 +0800, Eugene Grosbein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Marian Hettwer wrote:
>
>> I'm using lagg(4) on some of our servers and I'm just wondering how the
>> failover is implemented.
As far as I can tell, not especially well :-(. It doe
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:55:52 +0800, Eugene Grosbein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Marian Hettwer wrote:
>
>> I'm using lagg(4) on some of our servers and I'm just wondering how the
>> failover is implemented.
>> The manpage isn't quite clear:
>>
>> f
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37:15PM +0200, Marian Hettwer wrote:
> I'm using lagg(4) on some of our servers and I'm just wondering how the
> failover is implemented.
> The manpage isn't quite clear:
>
> failover Sends and receives traffic only through the master port.
> If
>
Hi Folks,
I'm using lagg(4) on some of our servers and I'm just wondering how the
failover is implemented.
The manpage isn't quite clear:
failover Sends and receives traffic only through the master port.
If
the master port becomes unavailable, the next active port
is
20 matches
Mail list logo
