>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayer, Paul W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -snip- > But it dawns on me that channel bonding and Vswitch (the way we have > them) really don't go together.
The most common use of NIC bonding is for reliability purposes, not bandwidth. So, in that sense, you already have that when connecting to a Vswitch that has a backup OSA. > So my thinking is that what we really need it two Vswitches with one OSA > in each. > No backup OSA needed, but would be nice to have. > > Then when we channel bond the eth0 and eth1 they really use to different > OSA's and > we can then get double the data flow. I don't think you can define two Vswitches that use the same range of IP addresses. If what you want is Link Aggregation, upgrade to z/VM 5.3 for that. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
