Jay A. Kreibich wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 07:05:40PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola scratched on the wall:
>
>
>>We have some switches that are able to do ip routing too... :-(
>
>
> So called "layer-three switches" are a whole different game.
Ok that's explain all, I was able to create two differ
Jay A. Kreibich wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:07:33AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola scratched on the wall:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Also I believe that if
a switch doesn't remember where a particular mac address is it will send
the packet to all of the attached ports.
I don't think so, I guess the switc
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 07:05:40PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola scratched on the wall:
> We have some switches that are able to do ip routing too... :-(
So called "layer-three switches" are a whole different game.
Essentualy, they are just routers where the "routing" interfaces and
the physical
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:07:33AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola scratched on the wall:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >Also I believe that if
> >a switch doesn't remember where a particular mac address is it will send
> >the packet to all of the attached ports.
>
> I don't think so, I guess the switch perfo
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:07:33 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >Also I believe that if
> >a switch doesn't remember where a particular mac address is it will send
> >the packet to all of the attached ports.
>
> I don't think so, I guess the switch p
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Also I believe that if
a switch doesn't remember where a particular mac address is it will send
the packet to all of the attached ports.
I don't think so, I guess the switch perform a sort of arpping in order to
detect who have a macaddress assigned, even the multicast is not
If you have 6 app servers it's just daft to stick 6 NICs in your DB
server.
While there might be some cases where that makes sense most likely it
isn't something you would want to do. I believe the original motivation
was to solve bandwidth congestion rather than security.
There have been many comments about this already Kent. My $.02:
The most common practice I am aware of is to install 2 NIC's in each
appserver - one to your load balancer, and one to your private network
(192.168.*) where your database server sites. In fact, ideally your
database machine has no
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 23:13:44 +0100,
Matt Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you have 6 app servers it's just daft to stick 6 NICs in your DB
> server.
While there might be some cases where that makes sense most likely it
isn't something you would want to do. I believe the original mot
Switches are not security devices. While it is harder to sniff packets on
switches, you can't count on them to prevent hostile machines on the
switch from playing games with the arp protocol. Also I believe that if
a switch doesn't remember where a particular mac address is it will send
the packet
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 17:37:43 +0100,
Matt Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You would assign a different subnet to the connection, and then tell the
> servers to connect to the PG server's address on that subnet. No other
> changes required. Very odd setup though. If you want a 'private'
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:
tgresql.org Subject: Re
My 2 pence.
I think it's not a big task. If the servers are located nearby, all you
need is.
Connect the two machines:
===
- get a crossover patch cable (Should be crossover - you can buy or make
one by googling instructions.)
- install one extra NIC on each machine
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:11:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Depends on the NIC. If your running 100MBS Ether and put in 1GBS Ether or
> fiber, it would make a difference.
Not if you're not using 100 megs in the first place :)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I remember whe
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:02:31AM -0600, Scott Marlowe scratched on the wall:
> This is more a networking issue than a PostgreSQL one. What you'll like
> want to do is to set up a nic in each box and use a "rolled" cable
> directly between them
Actually, you want a "cross-over" cable, not a "r
cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ADMIN] NIC to NIC
connection
This is more a networking issue than a PostgreSQL one. What you'll like
want to do is to set up a nic in each box and use a "rolled" cable
directly between them. Assign an IP to each machine like 10.0.0.1 and
10.0.0.2 and edit your route tables to make each machine use those IPs
respectively to t
g umpty NICs in the PG
server.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kent AndersonSent: 19 October 2004
17:05To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OrgSubject: [ADMIN] NIC
to NIC connection
We are upgrading
our servers and have run into
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:05:05PM -0400, Kent Anderson wrote:
> We are upgrading our servers and have run into an interesting situation. It
> has been proposed that we have a direct connection from the web servers to
> the postgres server via extra NICs.
> Before we even waste time installing th
We are upgrading our
servers and have run into an interesting situation. It has been proposed
that we have a direct connection from the web servers to the postgres
server via extra NICs. Has anyone done this before and how big a project would
it be to alter ASP and Java applications to make
20 matches
Mail list logo
