Why don't you want to load balance them? Also, the problem with passive/cold-backup solutions is, you never know until you flip the switch whether they are going to do the job or not in reality. You can test all you want, but Murphy's Law nearly always prevails. :)
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM, luismi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to find a solution for an issue here, we have two servers > with the same IP address configuration, both should be connected to the > same switch but just one is physically connected (the active node) while > the other one (the passive node) is like a cold-backup, it is waiting to > be physically connected (or in the other hand, the switch port should be > enable with a "no shutdown" command) > > Well, in both cases the solution -there is no way to create a cluster or > configure a keepalive/heartbeat between those servers- requires an human > intervention, so, I was thinking on use flex links but I have several > questions that I hope you can help me with them: > > When the backup port is going to be enabled? does it requires a > down/down or just an up/down? > > Is possible to configure a track or similar to verify the status of the > server or the port? (take note that the port and the switch have > different vlans) > > The switch is a 2960G with the "lan base" IOS > > If the switch doesn't support anything to track the port/server status, > is there any other Cisco switch platform available to do that? > > Thanks for all comments, all are welcome to resolve this. > > Regards > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
