From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: load balance [OT?] [Solution] Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:58:01 -0500 Message-ID: <48690289.2030909@riverviewtech.net> References: <1214492735.4427.6885.camel@kr0sty> <4866ECB1.2040903@riverviewtech.net> <1214832757.19463.40.camel@kr0sty> <4868ED10.3020506@riverviewtech.net> <1214840071.19463.112.camel@kr0sty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1214840071.19463.112.camel@kr0sty> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter On 06/30/08 10:34, Martin wrote: > Well, I don't know if understood it ok, but I'll try to answer it. *nod* > Ping work pretty well for me. Ping each gateway and if them responds > and if them are not saturated, load balance works great. If one > gateway doesn't responds or it's saturated, traffic switch to the > other interface. Ok. > About the loop, if one of the gateways goes down, but it still > responds because it passes traffic between both nics internally in > servers, you can test some things. Ok, you are deciding to let the loop happen and just detect that it is and / or prevent it from happening. I guess that is another way to solve the problem. IMHO, not having the loop happen is better, but what ever works for you. > Please, keep us updated about your tests or if you can solve it. May > be a different thread would be better to keep a track of this. Um, I'm not testing, that was based on what I have done in the past. Grant. . . .