[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chad Ziccardi [EMAIL PROTECTED], Danny Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Brad Bendy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ng_one2many v.s. AFT (NIC Fault Tolerance/Fail Over/Redundancy
Revisited) (fwd)
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Jonathan Donaldson wrote:
Take a look here:
http
], Brad Bendy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ng_one2many v.s. AFT (NIC Fault Tolerance/Fail Over/Redundancy
Revisited) (fwd)
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Brian J. Creasy wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
|
| Johnathan's comments suggest that we may need
On Saturday 15 October 2005 16:25, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
Has anyone had any success with FBSD 6.0? I totally forgot about this email...
Thanks!
Brad
Re:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-October/100623.ht
ml
First: This is all very preliminary from some testing
Brian,
Thanks for this excellent stream of thoughts, it is a lot like what I
am trying to accomplish...Please see my comments and questions in-line:
On Oct 15, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
Re: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-
October/100623.html
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 08:52:24AM -0400, Jonathan Donaldson wrote:
Essentially, a single layer 3 IP address needs to be visible in a
switch fault tolerant or adapter fault tolerant configuration.
A userland-level daemon could be scripted, and it has been done
before:
[...]
jonathan
Re:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-October/100623.html
First: This is all very preliminary from some testing over the weekend.
Dell's reponse was that Intel's AFT/ALB was entirely software based.
That left me with few options:
1) Try userland layer 3 failover (ugly)
