On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Chris McQuistion <[email protected]> wrote: > I should also add that my preference would be to use some kind of bridged > networking, as opposed to Host Only. The reasoning is that I would like to > be able to run any of the Super Router component virtual machines on any of > my 3 physical VMware ESX hosts. If the host that is hosting these > collections of machines should go down, then all of them would be restarted > on another host, but they might end up on different hosts. If they did, > then the host only networking would be a problem because that is limited to > running on each host, but not between them (if I understand correctly.)
I may be totally wrong with this, but I don't think ESX treats networks in the same way VMware Server/Workstation did. That being, the ideas of host only, nat, and bridged networks were removed. It appears to me at least that with ESX you simply have virtual switches that can either be "plugged into" a physical switch or left alone. Those switches then can be configured into port groups to setup things like load balancing, trunking, VLAN, etc. I'm not sure how that plays into your questions about fail over though. -jonathan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
