This is a discussion on Failover NIC in AIX 5.2 within the AIX Operating System forums, part of the Unix Operating Systems category; --> I'm looking at ordering a new server. I am wanting reduncancy in the NICs. I have searched this news ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| I'm looking at ordering a new server. I am wanting reduncancy in the NICs. I have searched this news group and found a lot of topics on multiple NICs. I've been reading about EherChannel, but in the IBM System Management Guide: Communications and Networks it says that "all the links in one EtherChannel are attached to a single switch." I'm not looking for an HA cluster, but I would like a solution that allows the second NIC to be connected to a different switch and if a failure occures in either the primary NIC, cable, switch, etc, the secondary NIC will take over. I used to work on an HP rp8400 that had this functionality. It has multiple NICs plugged into multiple switches and if the primary failed, the secondary automaticly and instantly took over. Is there anything like this with AIX 5.2?? Thanks for any suggestions. T. |
| |||
| TB wrote: > I'm looking at ordering a new server. I am wanting reduncancy in the > NICs. I have searched this news group and found a lot of topics on > multiple NICs. I've been reading about EherChannel, but in the IBM > System Management Guide: Communications and Networks it says that "all > the links in one EtherChannel are attached to a single switch." > > I'm not looking for an HA cluster, but I would like a solution that > allows the second NIC to be connected to a different switch and if a > failure occures in either the primary NIC, cable, switch, etc, the > secondary NIC will take over. I used to work on an HP rp8400 that had > this functionality. It has multiple NICs plugged into multiple > switches and if the primary failed, the secondary automaticly and > instantly took over. Is there anything like this with AIX 5.2?? > Thanks for any suggestions. > > T. |
| |||
| True "Etherchannel" does require "one switch". AIX Etherchannel can be defined with one NIC in the Etherchannel and another NIC as a "backup adapter". The backup adapter can be on a different switch. When the primary NIC fails, AIX will move the IP address to the second NIC so your network must handle that. |
| |||
| "TB" <chessgame@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1106678542.935351.188450@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com... > I'm looking at ordering a new server. I am wanting reduncancy in the > NICs. I have searched this news group and found a lot of topics on > multiple NICs. I've been reading about EherChannel, but in the IBM > System Management Guide: Communications and Networks it says that "all > the links in one EtherChannel are attached to a single switch." > > I'm not looking for an HA cluster, but I would like a solution that > allows the second NIC to be connected to a different switch and if a > failure occures in either the primary NIC, cable, switch, etc, the > secondary NIC will take over. I used to work on an HP rp8400 that had > this functionality. It has multiple NICs plugged into multiple > switches and if the primary failed, the secondary automaticly and > instantly took over. Is there anything like this with AIX 5.2?? > Thanks for any suggestions. > > T. In 5.2 they changed the Etherchannel a little. In 5.1 you could create an etherchannel device with type netif_backup, this contained 2 nics and created a etherchannel device that is used as your network adapter. Now in 5.2 you create an etherchannel device of the type standard and just add a second nic in the standby section and it will create the etherchannel you will configure as you network interface. The 2 nics you use should be on seperate switches and the failover works as you want it to . See the AIX 5.3 difference red book for more details. Doug > |
| ||||
| BOS "TB" <chessgame@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1107977284.939304.111690@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com... > Just to make sure, is Etherchannel part of the base OS? Or is it > additional software that needs purchased? > > Thanks. > |