From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 17 15:43:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B05516A420 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:43:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from TAFranck@gmx.net) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C11C343D48 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:43:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from TAFranck@gmx.net) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 15:43:06 -0000 Received: from p548D3743.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.0.66]) [84.141.55.67] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 17 Feb 2006 16:43:06 +0100 X-Authenticated: #867087 From: "Thomas Franck" To: Miguel Ramos Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:43:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1140189851.907.11.camel@dual.anjos.strangled.net> References: <43F5EF0A.31646.16880A2@TAFranck.gmx.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.31) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Content-description: Mail message body X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Message-Id: <20060217154307.C11C343D48@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2 NICs, SMP, weird kernel ARP messages X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:43:08 -0000 > Sex, 2006-02-17 =E0s 15:43 +0100, Thomas Franck escreveu: > > > Unless you take special measures (ng_fec?), one does not > > > normally connect two NICs on one machine to the same collision > > > domain. > > > > Hmm.. don't really see a problem with that.. two NICs with > > diffent IP on the same subnet.. binding say, a webserver and a > > database to different NICs... takes load off the single NIC, > > giving 100MBit to each service... > > > > If they're on the same collision domain, then you're not giving 100Mbps > to each service, that would be good. That's why it usually doesn't make > sense (I understand that this is a temporary configuration...). they should both have (almost) 100MBit as they're connected with switches.. so the collision domains are broken up for each NIC.. right down to the VLAN'ed base-switch... > You can have two IP addresses on the same NIC anyway... yeah.. but it's only one 100MBit that the services have to share on that NIC.. :) it doesn't matter, though.. we don't have that much load anyway (and if we have a peak, it's not critical) - it was just an example why I don't see a problem.. :) - Thomas