>You could just keep it simple and ignore the second nic. > >You would only need it if you want to route traffic, create another >subnet or make it a failover. I think if you assign each nic an ip on >the same subnet, that would cause problems. > >bob
Is that why they have two NIC's on them -- for routing? Not for balancing out network traffic? I would have thought that if you have upwards of twenty-five or so thin-clients connecting to the box, it would run better if you split them up between the cards. Otherwise, couldn't you conceivably get into a bottleneck situation with running all the clients through one NIC, slowing overall performance? Or do people with a lot of clients run them all through one NIC? I know I can could just ignore the one card; but I'd like this to work at it's optimal performance -- or at least the best that I can do. I've had them both configured on the same subnet for a couple of days without any problems (not in DNS, just in /etc/hosts as Suse configured it). I just didn't know the right / best way to do this, and networking is not my strong suit. I have fetchmail constantly running, getting mail from ten different accounts, so I figured that would tie up the NIC right there with a pretty decent load. So shifting some of that load to the other seems logical. ?? Thanks for the advice, though. I do greatly appreciate it. fp ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
