|
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 02:23:14PM +0100, ratz wrote:
> 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 ;)
>
Irrelavant.
Unfortunately M$ products are still in wide use in China. - I
personally hope free software will prevail some day.
Joe, I think the compatibility description with WindozNT in the HOWTO
needs to be corrected. Windoz NT (patched with whatever sevice packs)
works in VS-DR, and deleting VIP's subnet route does not seem
necessary, if it's the same as the RIP.
ZWZ
> > 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.
>
By "A > B", I mean subnet B falls in subnet A.
> > 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].
>
Thanks.
> Best regards,
> Roberto Nibali, ratz
>
> --
> mailto: `echo NrOatSz@xxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
>
|
