Peter L. Buschman penned:
Naturally, the Ultra had to be the admin host for this particular NetApp since no other machines could talk to it. =)
I guess this solution would not work for us, because we do need more than just the admin host to speak to the NetApp.
On the other side of the spectrum, I have a private 100Mbps switched ethernet segment that is used solely for backup purposes. Similar to the above, IPs were assigned that are not part of the public routed networks, and the filers were mounted on the private interfaces. This works very well as the heavy traffic of backups on several NetApps avoids entirely the public network entirely.
Would I need an additional ethernet interface for both the NetApp and my Sun? Maybe this is answered in your final sentence below ("machine" is so vague these days). I need the NetApp to still be able to communicate with other systems. The desired outcome is for both the Sun and the NetApp to be able to reach the world (obvious in the case of the Sun) but to talk to each other privately. Or at least for incoming traffic to the Sun that is going to go right back out to the NetApp to go out a different interface. Or would I simply achieve this with a 100 Mbps switched ethernet (full duplex)?
If you are using Solaris and need any help on configuration details, let me know what hardware you are using. The setup is fairly trivial given crimping supplies (and a hub if you want more than one machine to mount the NetApp.) and extra ethernet interfaces for the involved machines.
I do have a Sun Ultra Enterprise 3000 running Solaris 2.5.1. Up to now we have not used in.routed, instead creating /etc/defaultrouter. We have a Kalpana etherswitch which is going to be replaced with a Cisco Catalyst in the near future.
Regards,
David K. Drum david@more.net