[CentOS-virt] IP based VirtualHost: IP aliases vs. additional virtual interfaces
Jerry Franz
jfranz at freerun.comTue Aug 10 14:33:12 UTC 2010
- Previous message: [CentOS-virt] IP based VirtualHost: IP aliases vs. additional virtual interfaces
- Next message: [CentOS-virt] IP based VirtualHost: IP aliases vs. additional virtual interfaces
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 08/10/2010 07:12 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote: >> You don't have to restart the guest to add or remove aliases: >> > yes I am aware of that, and that's why I'm wondering whether it is > better to use aliases rather than to add virtual interfaces (which > does require to restart guests with our KVM version, no hot-plug I > think). > > You said it backwards originally. You said that aliases required restarts. ;) > But is there any drawback with using aliases? > Or does using virtual interfaces provide additional performance/stability/... ? > I've never had issues with aliases. They 'just work'. I use hundreds of them. -- Benjamin Franz
- Previous message: [CentOS-virt] IP based VirtualHost: IP aliases vs. additional virtual interfaces
- Next message: [CentOS-virt] IP based VirtualHost: IP aliases vs. additional virtual interfaces
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS-virt mailing list