This is an odd set up. I have a machine on a LAN that acts as one of two terminals for this certain network program. I have an extra identical machine, with same size hard drive. I would like to place a switching router assigned to this terminals external IP in terminals place. I would then like to clone the hard drive of that terminal, place the clone in the extra machine, and attach both to the switching router. the functionality I would like to achieve is thus, I want the server to see the router, now assigned the terminal's original address, as just one machine, so any data it sends out is essentially then split and sent to both machines simultaneously, and then any data sent from one of the machines would be sent to the server. I would, if this set up is possible, end up with a server controlling what it believes to be two terminals, and would actually have three terminals operating, two of which appearing as one. I know I could accomplish this if I had had thousands of dollars to spend on expensive networking equipment, but I would like to use an inexpensive option. Is this set up possible, and what switch/router would be best to use?
-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
How to make two cloned machines both recieve data from one ip address
- Thread starter iwaska
- Start date
You could likely get it to work with a mirror port on a managed switch with a filter to only send the correct data.
Problem is it will unlikely work. The key problem is if the "backup" machine would for any reason get even a tiny delay and need to discard a packet there would be no way to ever recover it. The reverse of the problem also exists in if the primary machine receives a corrupted packet it would ask for a retransmission where the backup machine may have received a proper packet. It would have to be able to tolerate this duplicate data.
The problem is the underlying data protocols assume 2 machine talking not some form of groups. You would likely have to write your own custom protocols and likely your own "router" to split the data to actually get a function solution.
Problem is it will unlikely work. The key problem is if the "backup" machine would for any reason get even a tiny delay and need to discard a packet there would be no way to ever recover it. The reverse of the problem also exists in if the primary machine receives a corrupted packet it would ask for a retransmission where the backup machine may have received a proper packet. It would have to be able to tolerate this duplicate data.
The problem is the underlying data protocols assume 2 machine talking not some form of groups. You would likely have to write your own custom protocols and likely your own "router" to split the data to actually get a function solution.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram