>
> Lost track in the thread here.. would a Networker client connection get
> confused under a simple setup (multiple independent NICS on the same LAN-
> no trunking).  I would think the outbound NIC server name (despite being
> in the client's servers file) might confuse a Networker save session;
> ie.. a reply comes back from different server name than it was initiated
> on?  Was that the point being made here?

No.  This is a TCP connection.  As far as the client can tell, it's the
same server (source IP/source port).  The fact that it is initially
delivered from the server via a different interface could increase the
path taken, but the client can't easily tell that this has occurred.

> Multiple NICs on the same LAN seems good from a central admin point of
> view;  one could manually load balance backup traffic based on storage
> node name (or backup server interface name ) without having to move clients
> to a different backup LAN.

Sure.  My only concern is if the server outbound traffic is not
distributed.  During a restore, it could cause performance issues.

It also seemed like suntrunking was available originally.  That should
give the same performance benefit as the multiple interfaces reducing
some of the maintenance concerns.


--
Darren Dunham                                           ddunham AT taos DOT com
Senior Technical Consultant         TAOS            http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper?                           San Francisco, CA bay area
         < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list. Questions regarding this list
should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=