于 2008年10月24日 06:42, Darren Reed 写道: > Comments... Thanks Darren for your comments...
> - the project as it is appears to deliver a single VRRP daemon that > serves all groups/instances that the host is participating in. Thus a > change in the configuration of one has the potential to affect all > others. Given this is a high-availability solution, is this wise? How will the change of one's configuration affect others'? > - further, please explain why it is preferable to not use SMF instances > to facilitate support of VRRP instances/groups. This would seem to > me like a natural marriage, yet the design being put forward does > not take advantage of this. Can SMF service instances be created dynamically? The VRRP instances/groups can be created/destroyed dynamically. > - what additional properties of the SMF service are supported? > e.g. pathname of the configuration file. Currently the only property of the VRRP smf service is the pathname of the configuration file. Since all configurations are in that file, we don't see what else could be SMF properties. Thanks. > > Darren > > _______________________________________________ > networking-discuss mailing list > [email protected] _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
