[Gllug] [OT]switch question.

[Tethys]

Peter Adamson writes:

>The 4 computers talking to the switch _feels_ better,  is there a better 
>reason for having this?

Connecting all the machines directly to the switch(es) is the standard
way of doing it. Is there any reason you'd want to avoid doing it that
way? When you say the machines are in groups of 4, what do you mean?
Are they on different VLANs? Do you need firewalling between the
groups? If so, that might be one reason for going down the 3 into 1
route (where you can use iptables on the gateway box for each group).

You should be aware that by nominating one of the 4 machines, you're
introducing a single point of failure. True, even without that, the
switch in a single point of failure for each subnet anwyay. But a
switch *should* be a more reliable box that a server. At least, that's
the theory, anyway...

Tet

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug