[Sussex] Anyone into bondage?

[Ronan Chilvers]

Hiya Jon

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:56:05 +0100
Jon Fautley <jfautley at redhat.com> wrote:

> Ronan Chilvers wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:55:23 +0100
> > Jon Fautley <jfautley at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Brendan Whelan wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jon,
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for the info.
> >>>
> >>>On the connectivity, I mean that if the cable is moved from eth0
> >>>(Onboard NIC) to eth1 (Offboard NIC) then I cannot connect.
> >>
> >>Bonding won't work in this manner. You need to have a cable
> >>connected to both interfaces for it to function correctly.
> > 
> > 
> > Eh?  I have a bonded interface on an ubuntu machine here which works
> > great and I can yank a cable from either interface and not lose
> > connectivity.  Surely that's a big part of the advantage of bonding
> > interfaces - redundancy????
> 
> Yeah, sorry, I didn't explain that very clearly. You'll need to start 
> both the interfaces in a connected state, for them to become a bonded 
> interface correctly. If you start with one down, i.e. only one
> active, then pull the cable from this, you'll kill off the whole
> bonding system, as there's no physical interfaces for it to route to.

Ah ha!!  That makes sense.  Got it now!

> 
> Of course, the whole point of bonding is that you only need one NIC 
> connected at a time...
> 
> Jon (goes to get more coffee...)

Put in a purchase req for a drip feed direct to your desk... saves the
walking...

:-)

Cheers

Ronan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20050930/7aaabc7b/attachment.pgp