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
different configurations.
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
configuration.
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.
http://www.shorewall.net/two-interface.htm
Bob
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.
Reply to: