On 2012-01-24 16:52, Gary Mills wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 04:39:42PM +0100, Robin Axelsson wrote:
ifconfig -a returns:
...
e1000g1: flags=1004843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,DHCP,IPv4> mtu
1500 index 2
inet 10.40.137.185 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.40.137.255
e1000g2: flags=1004843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,DHCP,IPv4> mtu
1500 index 3
inet 10.40.137.196 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.40.137.255
rge0: flags=1004843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,DHCP,IPv4> mtu 1500
index
4
Do you really have two ethernet ports on the same network? You can't
do that without some sort of link aggregation on both ends of the
connection.
I don't see why not. I've done this before and it used to work just
fine. These are two different controllers that work independently and I
do it so that the VM(s) could have its own NIC to work with as I believe
the virtual network bridge interferes with other network activity.
If we assume that both ports give rise to problems because they run
without teaming/link aggregation (which I think not) then there wouldn't
be any issues if I only used one network port. I have tried with only
one port and the issues are considerably worse in that configuration.
I experienced a series of shorter freeze-ups today (3-5 seconds
long) while monitoring the system using "System Monitor" through the
'vncserver' and 'top' over SSH. Those freeze-ups affected th CIFS
connection, SSH, and VNC connection (but did not sever them). The
freeze-ups were not long enough so that I could get to check the RDP
connection to the VM.
_______________________________________________
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
