1 |
On 2014-02-06, J. Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> If the switch supports bonding, use that as well. I have 4 interfaces |
4 |
> in a single bond. On that bond I have the vlans configured. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Helps with the throughput as I have multiple machines pulling data |
7 |
> from there connected to the same switch. |
8 |
|
9 |
I hadn't thought about that... it doesn't look like the switch I have |
10 |
at the moment supports bonding. Since throughput isn't an issue, I |
11 |
think I'd rather eliminate the complexity of the second/third/etc. NIC |
12 |
card(s) in the host. In the past I had run into problems where an OS |
13 |
upgrade would cause the interface names to swap on some (but not all) |
14 |
machines. With just a single interface, and udev-name-randomization |
15 |
disabled, that problem goes away. :) |
16 |
|
17 |
-- |
18 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Hmmm ... A hash-singer |
19 |
at and a cross-eyed guy were |
20 |
gmail.com SLEEPING on a deserted |
21 |
island, when ... |