On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 03:13:33PM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > > I guess setups with multiple active NICs are relatively
> > rare and can
> > > be dealt with using a top-level script (or configured manually).
> > I'd disagree with that (unless I am misunderstanding the
> > definition of active). Every pizza box server I've seen ship
> > in the last 3 years has had dual onboard nics. Dual nic
> > setup for server (one for production and one for
> > administration) is best practice for any reasonable size
> > server environment.
> I think you're actually agreeing with me.
> Having a separate dom0 interface for administration is certainly good
> practice. However, having multiple bridges is probably relatively rare,
> so we can probably get away with not having multiple network-script lines.
> However, I'd prefer that we could.
I was thinking about this over the weekend, and it occured to me that this
might not be the case. Today, when we are all doing testing on
xen-unstable, we're pretty much always running test domUs so have something
ethX -> bridged/routed to domUs
ethY -> dom0 only, in case ethX dies
However, in many production environment you need an administrative lan to
all servers to apply software updates and the like. So you'd actually have.
ethX -> bridged/routed production lan for domUs
ethY -> bridged/routed admin lan for domUs
Hopefully ethY would be reliable enough that we wouldn't need a 3rd NIC to
be admin for dom0 in the event of xen network stack fall over, but we might.
Not proposing any solutions as yet, but it is worth noting that this might
not be as uncommon as first thought.
Sean Dague Mid-Hudson Valley
sean at dague dot net Linux Users Group
There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors
than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down.
Description: PGP signature
Xen-devel mailing list