This should work if the "storage nodes" field is set to the same value - I
believe that if left as nsrserverhost then the actual backed up data will
go through the "primary" backup server NIC. We had a problem with the
networker oracle module that we couldn't get to talk to the secondary
interface but would send the backup data via the storage node field entry.
There should be no problems with 2 routers choosing the right path IF you
are using tapelib1=x.x.200.x and tapelib4=x.x.200.x where all the x's are
not the same.

 On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:00:41 -0500, Joel Fisher <jfisher AT WFUBMC DOT EDU> 
wrote:

>Hey Guys,
>
>
>
>I'm getting ready to upgrade my server and along with this upgrade I had
>planned on implementing sun trunking and just having one big(4Gb) pipe
>on the same IP that I use now.  Well, after having a long discussion
>with the networking guys here, because our core links are only 1Gb I
>would be better of having the separate NICs on separate switches and
>separate subnets.
>
>
>
>Our data center is setup like below.
>
>
>
>2 Cisco 6509 connected to 2 Cisco routers(not sure what model) via 1Gb
>pipes.
>
>Our servers mostly use 3 subnets x.x.158.x, x.x.200.x and x.x.201.x.
>
>So in a perfect world I would get the best network performance if I had
>6 NICs 1 on each subnet on each switch.  That would keep the amount of
>traffic that has to cross the shared 1Gb pipe way down.
>
>I have a V880 8x1.2Mhz 16GB Memory, so I have the physical ability to do
>this.
>
>
>
>My question is:  Is networker able to take advantage of a configuration
>like this?  I would set it up like below.
>
>
>
>In switch1: tapelib=x.x.158.x(main server NIC),
>tapelib1=x.x.200.x,tapelib2=x.x.201.x
>
>In switch2: tapelib3=x.x.158.x, tapelib4=x.x.200.x,tapelib5=x.x.201.x
>
>
>
>On a client plugged into switch1 on the 200 vlan I would put "tapelib1"
>in the "Server network interface" field.
>
>On a client plugged into switch2 on the 200 vlan I would put "tapelib4"
>in the "Server network interface" field.
>
>
>
>>From what I've found in the archive, at least the initial connect will
>also use the 158 NIC in switch1(no problem).  My concern is that it'll
>try to use both of the 200 NICs instead of the one I designate.  Does
>anyone have a similar setup that is functioning correctly?  This would
>complicate my backup configuration a bit, but I think the potential
>performance gains are quite high.
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>Joel Fisher
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
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
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=