On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Willis L. Sarka wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Just a general question or two.. Please point me to a URL or tell me where
> to RTFM, or answer back ;-).
>
> What is the status/condition of using muliport NICs and bonding
> them together to form a larger pipe (i.e. a quad channel
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Willis L. Sarka wrote:
Greetings,
Just a general question or two.. Please point me to a URL or tell me where
to RTFM, or answer back ;-).
What is the status/condition of using muliport NICs and bonding
them together to form a larger pipe (i.e. a quad channel
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Um, what about people running their box as just a VLAN router/firewall?
> > That seems to be one of the principle uses so far. Actually, in that case
> > both VLAN and IP traffic would come through, so it would be a tie if VLAN
> > came first, but
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Um, what about people running their box as just a VLAN router/firewall?
That seems to be one of the principle uses so far. Actually, in that case
both VLAN and IP traffic would come through, so it would be a tie if VLAN
came first, but non-vlan
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Constantine Gavrilov wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to use channel bonding driver for high availability.
>
> Currenly the bonding driver does not detect a dead slave link. When a
> slave link dies, it causes lots of network retransmits and the effective
> speed of the bonding device
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Constantine Gavrilov wrote:
Hi, I'd like to use channel bonding driver for high availability.
Currenly the bonding driver does not detect a dead slave link. When a
slave link dies, it causes lots of network retransmits and the effective
speed of the bonding device
6 matches
Mail list logo
