t be easier to simply use the host IP adresses
and
not the cluster IP's?
(the application will need to handle up/down events itself)
Regards,
Kit
--------------
*From:* linux-cluster-boun...@redhat.com [mailto:
linux-cluster-boun...@redhat.com] *On Behalf Of *Dus
t;> done as the product we are selling is selling well and inducing Redhat
>> Support sales.
>>
>> An official feature request has been submitted to Redhat.
>>
>> Also, I'm working on the /usr/share/cluster/ip.sh script myself to add
>> the
>> featur
;
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Kit Gerrits wrote:
>
>> In that case, might it be easier to simply use the host IP adresses and
>> not the cluster IP's?
>> (the application will need to handle up/down events itself)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
linux-cluster-boun...@redhat.com] *On Behalf Of *Dustin Henry Offutt
> *Sent:* dinsdag 15 juni 2010 14:40
> *To:* linux clustering
> *Subject:* Re: [Linux-cluster] Higher Grained Definition ofIP
> AddressAssignments
>
> I've spent the past year architecting an HA cluster with
ffutt
Sent: dinsdag 15 juni 2010 14:40
To: linux clustering
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Higher Grained Definition ofIP
AddressAssignments
I've spent the past year architecting an HA cluster with RHCS and it's
working wonderfully. I have not seen anything superior.
Due to a new customer
