On 12-Nov-2013, at 5:49 pm, Lennert den Teuling wrote:
>
>
>> Op 12 november 2013 om 13:04 schreef Shanker Balan
>> :
>>
>>
>> Comments inline.
>>
>> On 12-Nov-2013, at 5:16 pm, Lennert den Teuling wrote:
>>
Op 12 november 2013 om 2:18 schreef Nick Wales :
Thanks Lennert.
>>>
> Op 12 november 2013 om 13:04 schreef Shanker Balan
> :
>
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On 12-Nov-2013, at 5:16 pm, Lennert den Teuling wrote:
>
> >> Op 12 november 2013 om 2:18 schreef Nick Wales :
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Lennert.
> >>
> >> My issue isn't around the state of the VR as such, we've
Comments inline.
On 12-Nov-2013, at 5:16 pm, Lennert den Teuling wrote:
>> Op 12 november 2013 om 2:18 schreef Nick Wales :
>>
>>
>> Thanks Lennert.
>>
>> My issue isn't around the state of the VR as such, we've destroyed and
>> brought back plenty with no issue, more so the impact it going down
> Op 12 november 2013 om 2:18 schreef Nick Wales :
>
>
> Thanks Lennert.
>
> My issue isn't around the state of the VR as such, we've destroyed and
> brought back plenty with no issue, more so the impact it going down will
> have on my instances.
>
> We're looking at consolidation ratios of 40
Thanks Lennert.
My issue isn't around the state of the VR as such, we've destroyed and
brought back plenty with no issue, more so the impact it going down will
have on my instances.
We're looking at consolidation ratios of 40 to 1 so Pods will have a large
number of instances.
We have been tryin
> Op 12 november 2013 om 0:07 schreef Nick Wales :
>
>
> I have a couple issues with the current setup involving the virtual router.
>
> 1. I'm not using the VR for port forwarding / VPN / routing or anything
> traffic related so it would seem to me to be relatively trivial to have a
> secondary
