From: root <root@relay.taligent.net>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)@pop.zip.com.au
Subject: Multi NICs. Single HOP (NIC) Problem.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:59:01 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200011202259.eAKMx1K03231@relay.taligent.net> (raw)
Hello,
I have been struggling for a few months to get some internet servers
to use 3-4 NICs effectively. I want to bind deamons to their own
NIC so they are used independently. This is all IP software and i can get
software to bind to these IPs (usually as standalone daemons)
The host computers have 3-4 NICs running in 100MbpsTX-FD using a switch
I slight problem with DNS resolver on some computers is that it can
default to any NIC using the same address range/netmask though this
has nothing to do with the "hop node" to ethernet adapter.
This is one example. (ISP style)
Apache in master daemon mode (bind/listen on) - bound to eth1 IP
FTPD in standalone mode (daemonaddress) - bound to eth2 IP
What I want to do is get each daemon using a seperate NIC (fastest
network performance with help from running without inetd and some
tuning)
At first i believed that, because the DNS resolver can use any NIC (using
the same address range as ip specified in resolv.conf file) the other NICs
are not being used. But a DNS Server using the listen-on directive for the
pair of NICs proved this not so.
I've tried ipchains & tcpdump to figure out what's happening
so I am doing things like the following
ipchains -A input -i eth1 -s $ETH2_IP ....etc
Using tcpdump the second nic isn't used. Yet the daemon on this is bound
to eth2 ip address by a directive.
So i believe it's a matter of arriving packets, and has something to
do with the route taken when the packet was sent (on the last hop).
if the previous "hop node" has been told that eth1 is the route
to eth2's address, then this can happen.
Question is, is their anyway to force the kernel or TCP/IP stack
governing the IPs not to accept one IP (NIC1) destined for the other
(NIC2). It must go through it's corresponding path.
If not, then i believe that a single gigabit ethernet adapter with ip
aliases is a better solution and faster (isn't necassarily the case)
than 3 or 4 100baseTX cards in full duplex
Any Help/Advice appreciatted
Best Regards
Kevin D.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next reply other threads:[~2000-11-20 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-20 22:59 root [this message]
2000-11-21 16:32 ` Jesse Pollard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200011202259.eAKMx1K03231@relay.taligent.net \
--to=root@relay.taligent.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®