Re: Re: Re: Bonded network: "No route to host" between slaves
Seyyed Mohtadin Hashemi wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Is there some reason that you are choosing not to use a switch that
> > you haven't told us about?
> I have no reason other than I'm trying different network configurations to
> learn how to do different things. I already have established a network
> config using a switch that did all the things i described earlier, i wanted
> to see is it was possible to make it work only using NICs.
Learning is good! I am fully supportive of gaining experience with
In this case a configuration which might be more generally useful
would be a router configuration. Instead of bridging (or bonding)
different network cards together something which I often need to do is
to set up a route between them. (Windows calls this Internet
Sharing.) If you were trying different configurations for the
purposes of learning then I would definitely queue up a router
My favorite helper for this is Shorewall. It builds the iptables
rules from simpler rules. I like it. Others like other tools. Still
others like writing everything in small detail themselves. For
something that I think is useful to work through I would look through
this documentation and work through the examples there.
Thanks, i'll make sure to do some experiments during this or the next week.
As for the original problem, the bridge config you suggested works. I tested the connection speed and integrity by transferring a 1gb file several times between the different computers, this is the results i got:
For bonded network:
desktop 1 --> server: 399Mbit
desktop 2 --> server: 387Mbit
desktop 1 --> desktop 2: Host unreachable
For bridged network:
desktop 1 --> server: 834Mbit
desktop 2 --> server: 832Mbit
desktop 1 --> desktop 2: 390Mbit
have a nice day.