SOLVED LACP & Netgear 24-Port JGS524NA

[AltecBX]

So I decided to use all 4 ports in back on my MB (X10SRH-CLN4F) to link them together to form a LACP. Ever since I did this, my connection to the server been weird. When browsing through the folders or when Windows explorer has a open folder from the server, it seems like it's waiting for a connection for a few seconds and then retrieves the files. At other times it seems fine. Also when I'm browsing the server through the IP it kinds of lags like there is no connection and then it responds with the link I clicked on. I have everything connected to a Netgear 24-Port JGS524NA. What can the problem be?

 

[cyberjock]

That sounds alot like either you didn't setup LACP properly in FreeNAS or you didn't setup LACP properly in your switch.

I'm not sure what your actual usage is, but if you are in a home environment you'll find LACP not only doesn't help your throughput but will actually introduce new problems if not setup properly. For this reason we don't recommend LACP in the home.

 

[jgreco]

For this reason we don't recommend LACP in the home.

... and we strongly discourage it elsewhere too, at least for the light use case, though it does have its place in the world once you get a half dozen or more active clients.

 

[AltecBX]

Ahh that's probably the problem. This switch I notice is unmanaged, that's why I wrote down the switch model. Nothing to configure. Any other protocol type I should use then, since I have empty ports on my switch and this MB has 4 1Gb ports. Maybe (Failover or Load balance)?

I'm going to just use 1 NIC port and report back.

 

[jgreco]

You won't have any good luck with LACP then. You might manage to get some awful hack of traffic going out multiple ports on the FreeNAS side, but it'll be fragile and could be unpredictable in unpleasant ways, and the switch's silicon might not care for the ARP scenario you're creating. A managed switch (Dell 5324 works and is cheap) can do LACP but even then it is of limited usefulness.

A cheapish upgrade to 10gig for the filer is possible, about $600 for a Dell 5524 (eBay), about $300 for an Intel X520-DA1, and a little more for the connecting hardware, and you end up with the ability to drive several client gigabit ports at full speed. Plus it gets you another 10gig port that you could use for your desktop. ;-)

 

[AltecBX]

Gotcha! Thanks for the quick reply guys.
Let me go disconnect the 4 ports and reconfigure NIC 1 to see if the problem goes away.

 

[cyberjock]

I bought 10Gb just in the last 8 months or so. Obviously that's a clear winner if you want "moar speed". I ran with a single Gb LAN from my FreeNAS server to my home and aside from not being "extreme enough" as one of the forum admins, there wasn't anything wrong with it. I regularly got 100MB/sec+, never had performance problems that made me want to pull my hair out, etc. My main reason for going with 10Gb is that I wanted the experience of 10Gb so I could pass along what the experience was like for me. I'll admit it's been pretty disappointing in Windows. Windows just doesn't do high throughput with 10Gb well. Linux on the other hand does very well.

There's no shame in having a single 1Gb LAN connection from your server to your house. Until you are actually being bottle-necked by that 1Gb LAN port there's no reason to drop more money except for the e-penis. 1Gb LAN gives you lots of room to stream multiple video streams simultaneously, etc.

So what am I saying? If you got the money and want to spend the money for 10Gb, go for it. But don't spend the money and expect massive performance increases. They aren't going to be there. ;)

 

[jgreco]

What can the problem be?

I should get back to my old terse answers: "ARPocalypse Now".

 

[AltecBX]

Well the problem went away. 1 cat cable to Nic 1 and its's working like a charm. I really wanted to see a faster netowrk with the extra ports without shelling out for a 10Gb network. Ohh well!

I bought 10Gb just in the last 8 months or so. Obviously that's a clear winner if you want "moar speed". I ran with a single Gb LAN from my FreeNAS server to my home and aside from not being "extreme enough" as one of the forum admins, there wasn't anything wrong with it. I regularly got 100MB/sec+, never had performance problems that made me want to pull my hair out, etc. My main reason for going with 10Gb is that I wanted the experience of 10Gb so I could pass along what the experience was like for me. I'll admit it's been pretty disappointing in Windows. Windows just doesn't do high throughput with 10Gb well. Linux on the other hand does very well.

There's no shame in having a single 1Gb LAN connection from your server to your house. Until you are actually being bottle-necked by that 1Gb LAN port there's no reason to drop more money except for the e-penis. 1Gb LAN gives you lots of room to stream multiple video streams simultaneously, etc.

So what am I saying? If you got the money and want to spend the money for 10Gb, go for it. But don't spend the money and expect massive performance increases. They aren't going to be there. ;)

I know what you mean. I really don't see myself needing the extra room other than transferring media from my workstation. It bugs me that it tops out at 112Mb/s when transferring large files to the FreeNAS server. Other than that, I don't see a performance issue on my network. I just wanted to utilize the other ports for something that can improve my performance.

I should get back to my old terse answers: "ARPocalypse Now".

lol.

I'm going to take a look at the hardware you mention for the future if I ever decide that I need to drop some money on a faster network.

 

[zambanini]

come on, a Mellanox SX1012 should be the way to go.

 

[AltecBX]

come on, a Mellanox SX1012 should be the way to go.

haha. Yea right..

 

[cyberjock]

I know what you mean. I really don't see myself needing the extra room other than transferring media from my workstation. It bugs me that it tops out at 112Mb/s when transferring large files to the FreeNAS server.

Well, on my hardware I typically only see 160-200MB/sec with CIFS on Windows when transferring to my server. So again, not exactly a massive increase (and certainly not the 10x improvement you might expect). And lets be honest with ourselves, NFS and AFP are non-starters in Windows. So your options are pretty limited.

In linux I can regularly get 400MB/sec+ on the same desktop hardware. So clearly Windows isn't the most efficient option when it comes to doing CIFS work.

This is why I said don't buy 10Gb and expect massive improvements. They aren't going to be there in Windows.

 

[AltecBX]

Ahh, Gotcha! Then there is definitely no reason for me to move to 10Gbs. I only use Windows and Mac in my environment to communicate with my FreeNAS server. Only services I have on is CIFS, S.M.A.R.T, and SSH. I will enable iSCSI in the near future for one of my windows workstation. You think it will handle just like CIFS speed in windows(160-200MB/s)? Or can the Windows iSCSI drivers handle the 10Gbs speed increase closer to Linux?
And if the case is that the CIFS protocol is slower in Windows and iSCSI protocol is faster, than will it be wise for me to just setup a iSCSI connection to do my transfer if I ever move to a 10Gb network, since my bottleneck now in Windows is the 1Gb network and the 10Gb will be CIFS?

Have you enabled and setup a iSCSI connection to FreeNAS on your 10Gb network and tested the speed?

 

[cyberjock]

Well, it depends on where your limitations are. iSCSI can be fast, but it forces you do to things like go with mirrors over RAIDZ2, and you often need lots of RAM for good speed. In short, it quickly gets expensive if you are truly wanting high throughput.

Everyone has always said that if you want lots of performance you'll have to spend lots of money on hardware. Unfortunately, you gotta be ready to open up that wallet. ;)

I have tried iSCSi on my 10Gb. The fact that I had a RAIDZ2 (and a RAIDZ3 at one point) made it a show stopper. Performance was MUCH worse than CIFS, like peak of 30-40MB/sec.