On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 09:22, Sven Schuster wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:04:24PM +0100, Marc Haber told us: > > What you intend to do does not make sense. > > > > This surely is meant to be a solution to some unmentioned problem. By > > asking about the problem, I am just trying to give a solution. > > well, I know that it doesn't make much sense. This setup was made to > "balance" the traffic coming in to the machine. I know that there's > not much difference between one NIC running at, say 400 Mbps, or > two NICs running at 200 Mbps each which will also be 400 Mbps, because > the machine can't handle more traffic (data (backups) is received via > network from other machines and written to disks)...but as I've already > written, this wasn't my decision... <snip> Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to think this challenging issue all the way through but I'll share my first thoughts. As they are first thoughts, they may be completely worthless :-) Like Alexander, I would think iproute2 could be your friend. I am under the impression that some of its features are explicitly to load balance across multiple NICs on the same interface but I don't recall what gave me that impression. You may find some other options outside of routing. If you have specific services, you may be able to bind those services to a particular address. For lack of a better example, let's assume we bind Apache to 1.2.3.4 and an Asterisk IP PBX to 1.2.3.5. You could set up two different DNS entries for the two sets of services: web.mycompany.com is 1.2.3.4 pbx.mycompany.com is 1.2.3.5 I'm not sure if that will confuse anything. Just some raw thoughts. I hope they help - John -- John A. Sullivan III Chief Technology Officer Nexus Management +1 207-985-7880 john.sullivan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- If you are interested in helping to develop a GPL enterprise class VPN/Firewall/Security device management console, please visit http://iscs.sourceforge.net
