Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:15:34 +0200 From: Mattias Pantzare <pantzer@ludd.luth.se> To: hans@artcom.de (Hans Huebner) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD HA configuration / Ethernet address takeover Message-ID: <199804252115.XAA14964@zed.ludd.luth.se> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:40:45 %2B0200." <m0yTBkb-00000nC@mail.artcom.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >As others have suggested, though, all of the services that you've > >described already support redundant servers. > I'm aware of that. I'd prefer failing over the ethernet address > because it would also simplify the implementation of redundant > servers. This is because the server processes themselves only need > to support orderly shutdown. Designing a high availabilty mechanism > at the application level is bound to be more problematic than failing > over the server processes at the operating system level. Why do it at the eternet level and not at the IP level? Doing it at the IP level will give the same functionality if the only protocol that you are using is IP. All the support is already there. Just set up two IP adresses on the server that is covering for the failing server, the normal IP and the IP of the failing server. If you do it at the ethernet level then the backup server can't be used for other things as its's ethernet adress will disapear if you change the ethernet adress on it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804252115.XAA14964>