RE: rac network question
- From: "Michael McMullen" <ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'Matthew Zito'" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:46:06 -0500
I agree it will work, but isn't the private and public supposed to be
physically separate, not logically?
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Zito [mailto:mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: January 10, 2008 5:08 PM
To: ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: rac network question
Actually, just so's we're all clear, with the VLAN support that the
gentleman described originally, the interfaces will appear separate - eth0.1
and eth0.2 (note: different than eth0:1 and eth0:2). The traffic will be
shared, but as long as the bonding works as it should, it just means that if
a card is lost, both the interconnect and the VIP will fail over to the
other link. IMHO, while this is suboptimal, it should work fine.
Matt
_____
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: rac network question
- From: Andrew Kerber
- References:
- RE: rac network question
- From: Matthew Zito
Other related posts:
- » rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » RE: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » RE: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » RE: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » RE: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » Re: rac network question
- » RE: rac network question
- Re: rac network question
- From: Andrew Kerber
- RE: rac network question
- From: Matthew Zito