|
Hi,
> I reached this conclusion when I was setting up a 2-node NT (SP5 and
> SP6, Chinese version) cluster a week ago. After a couple more of
Though China doesn't allow M$ products anymore ;)
> tests, I have to say this is only partially correct (i.e. false ;).
> Now I'd like to modify my previous statement a bit. :)
Let's denote RIP's subnet as A, and VIP's subnet as B.
I assume you're talking about VS-DR.
> If A > B, hosts in B will not be able to connect to the real servers
> (RIPs of course).
Why would you do something like this? By stating A > B, I
assume you mean the netmask bits.
> If A = B, subnet route A takes precedence, so it works fine.
this is how you should do it.
> If A < B, hosts in B but not in A will not be able to connect to the
> realservers.
>
> Setting VIP's subnet to the same as that of the RIPs seems to be the
> ideal choice, in which case, RIP's subnet route takes precedence.
Exactly! Just do it this way and you're safe. The rest just gets
you a headache ;)
> Anyway, MS NT is confusing.
This is a very nice way of describing it ;) I'm happy that I don't
have to work with it [OT].
Best regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
mailto: `echo NrOatSz@xxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
