Two NIC's for the average home user - config help

[depasseg]

This is the supporting infrastructure behind SMB Multichannel. Except it's automatic, but only works on certain versions of the client and server (unfortunately, it doesn't sound like it's been released as part of Samba yet which means it's probably not part of FreeNAS.
https://vimeo.com/109683912

 

[Black Ninja]

I gave up the multichannel already (becasue need Windows 8 not 7, Windows Server 12 nor 2008 R2 and Freenas cant work with it), don't put salt in that wound , please.:D

Now we have to find a way to use 10G and 1G networks

 

[Black Ninja]

It would work just fine, of course.

That's what I want to hear. It will work for small network better than LACP. I will have 4 dedicated line to 4 machines or group of machines in the same subnet. I strugle with LACP too long, usualy when needed it's not aggregating or aggregate one PC but not the other.

I mention also getting 10g upgrade , I read you 10G primer and don't understand the difference between getting dell 5524 switch with 4 10GB uplinks or get the Netgear ProSafe XS708E ports 10GB ? Perhaps with difference I mean what is better ? Cost is similar but what is better option ?

 

[pirateghost]

That's what I want to hear. It will work for small network better than LACP. I will have 4 dedicated line to 4 machines or group of machines in the same subnet. I strugle with LACP too long, usualy when needed it's not aggregating or aggregate one PC but not the other.

4 dedicated lines to 4 machines will NOT work unless they are on different subnets. This would require 2 Network cards per client machine. One NIC would be on the normal subnet, and another NIC would be a different subnet, going straight back to the server. Each of the 4 NICs on the server would need to be on a different subnet and each one dedicated to a client. This is a dumb design and will not gain you anything beyond connecting 1 server NIC and the 4 clients to a decent switch. It will however increase your overhead support, as in, you will have a bigger headache. If you need faster speed, go 10Gbps.

If you make an attempt at subnetting out the different NICs on the server to a switch (with VLANs), you then have a problem with your bottleneck being the gateway for those devices.
If you just randomly assign a different subnet on each NIC (without VLANs) and plug them into your switch, you are just breaking your network.

 

[Black Ninja]

4 dedicated lines to 4 machines will NOT work unless they are on different subnets. This would require 2 Network cards per client machine. One NIC would be on the normal subnet, and another NIC would be a different subnet, going straight back to the server. Each of the 4 NICs on the server would need to be on a different subnet and each one dedicated to a client. This is a dumb design and will not gain you anything beyond connecting 1 server NIC and the 4 clients to a decent switch. It will however increase your overhead support, as in, you will have a bigger headache. If you need faster speed, go 10Gbps.

If you make an attempt at subnetting out the different NICs on the server to a switch (with VLANs), you then have a problem with your bottleneck being the gateway for those devices.
If you just randomly assign a different subnet on each NIC (without VLANs) and plug them into your switch, you are just breaking your network.

Honestly I was thinking what will happened if I do "...just randomly assign a different subnet on each NIC (without VLANs) and plug them into your switch " I Guess I need to put them on separate vlans too ?!?

You said it's a dumb design, can you suggest better topology without LAGG ? I would appreciate critics that comes with solutions.

 

[depasseg]

Yes go to 10GbE.

You are asking for the holy grail of solutions. It doesn't exist. It's right up there with Unicorns.

 

[Black Ninja]

Yes go to 10GbE.

You are asking for the holy grail of solutions. It doesn't exist. It's right up there with Unicorns.

Let say I'll go with 10G. I still need topology, because I will still have majority of the devices to be 1gb , and 3-4 machines will need 10G speed, what topology can be used ?
2 switches 1gb and 10gb connected together , or 1 switch with 4 10gb links ?

 

[jgreco]

4 dedicated lines to 4 machines will NOT work unless they are on different subnets. This would require 2 Network cards per client machine. One NIC would be on the normal subnet, and another NIC would be a different subnet, going straight back to the server. Each of the 4 NICs on the server would need to be on a different subnet and each one dedicated to a client. This is a dumb design and will not gain you anything beyond connecting 1 server NIC and the 4 clients to a decent switch. It will however increase your overhead support, as in, you will have a bigger headache.

Oh dear god DO EFFING NOT DO THIS.

You of course have four subnets, each of which is hooked up to your router (and by router I mean *router*, not a cheap NAT gateway which many consumers call a "router". It can however be a NAT gateway capable of dealing with routing four separate subnets. Like pfSense or a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter.)

One network card per client. Anything else is just asking for massive headache.

 

[Black Ninja]

By the way I would like to stay with copper - 10gb-T , because of the complication with working , wiring and most of all terminating fiber.

 

[jgreco]

I would call this technology " Link Aggregation without link Aggravation":D

No, it isn't link aggregation, because you cannot get to every endpoint over any given channel. This is called NETWORK SEGMENTATION. It's a basic strategy for growing simple networks.

 

[Black Ninja]

Oh dear god DO EFFING NOT DO THIS.

You of course have four subnets, each of which is hooked up to your router (and by router I mean *router*, not a cheap NAT gateway which many consumers call a "router". It can however be a NAT gateway capable of dealing with routing four separate subnets. Like pfSense or a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter.)

One network card per client. Anything else is just asking for massive headache.

Then if I get the switch you mention in your "10GB primer post.." Dell 5524 I think it was with 4 10GB up links and connect freenas to one 10GB uplink, is that mean 10 clients can suck 1GB from the server simulations ? I just don't know how switch will do switching with 10GB up links and 1gb ports ?!

 

[Black Ninja]

No, it isn't link aggregation, because you cannot get to every endpoint over any given channel. This is called NETWORK SEGMENTATION. It's a basic strategy for growing simple networks.

You are absolutely right. I meant it as a joke. It is segmentation.:)

 

[jgreco]

By the way I would like to stay with copper - 10gb-T , because of the complication with working , wiring and most of all terminating fiber.

Tough nuts. Almost all the decent gear with a modest number of 10GbE ports and a pile of 1GbE ports is SFP+. You don't necessarily need to use fiber, you can always twinax it. But fiber's easy to work with if you do it right - probably easier than Cat6A. As I note in my 10G networking primer, the future is likely to trend towards 10GBASE-T but most deployed stuff is SFP+.

There's probably plenty of gear around that'll do the job. I'm thinking Dell 6224 with some modules, but there's other options too.

 

[HoneyBadger]

I just don't know how switch will do switching with 10GB up links and 1gb ports ?!

That's the switch's job in this case. It will accept 10Gbps of traffic from the FreeNAS machine and switch each 1Gbps worth to the proper interface.

 

[depasseg]

Let say I'll go with 10G. I still need topology, because I will still have majority of the devices to be 1gb , and 3-4 machines will need 10G speed, what topology can be used ?
2 switches 1gb and 10gb connected together , or 1 switch with 4 10gb links ?

Once you go 10GbE, there really isn't a topology issue. It's about the port count and overall cost. How many devices will use 10GbE ports (now and in the future)? How many will use 1GbE? You can use either the Netgear Prosafe or the Dell 5524 depending on your port distribution. Or the Netgear downlinked to a more dense 1GbE switch. Both solutions will be fine.

 

[jgreco]

Then if I get the switch you mention in your "10GB primer post.." Dell 5524 I think it was with 4 10GB up links and connect freenas to one 10GB uplink, is that mean 10 clients can suck 1GB from the server simulations ? I just don't know how switch will do switching with 10GB up links and 1gb ports ?!

The 5524 has two 10G ports plus two HDMI ports, which can be used to stack 5524's. You would need two 5524's to get four usable 10G ports.

Yes, the whole point of switching ethernet is that things work. It isn't any different than how a 100Mbps client communicates with a server that is connected to a switch at 1Gbps. You don't need to worry much about the details, it's just made to work.

You can theoretically have ten 1G clients talking simultaneously at full speed to a 10G server. In practice it won't be quite that ideal, but reality never is.

 

[Black Ninja]

Tough nuts. Almost all the decent gear with a modest number of 10GbE ports and a pile of 1GbE ports is SFP+. You don't necessarily need to use fiber, you can always twinax it. But fiber's easy to work with if you do it right - probably easier than Cat6A. As I note in my 10G networking primer, the future is likely to trend towards 10GBASE-T but most deployed stuff is SFP+.

There's probably plenty of gear around that'll do the job. I'm thinking Dell 6224 with some modules, but there's other options too.

How about using 2 switches one gigabit and one net gear 8port 10GB (the one with 10GB-T Base ports) you mention in 10GB primer ? Is there disadvantage to that option ?

 

[Black Ninja]

That's the switch's job in this case. It will accept 10Gbps of traffic from the FreeNAS machine and switch each 1Gbps worth to the proper interface.

So it will do perfect balancing of all 1gb ports requesting data ( as long as they are not more than 10) unlike LACP which will balance sometimes when it decides ?! If I get it right it's sound great ?!?

 

[depasseg]

You can theoretically have ten 1G clients talking simultaneously at full speed to a 10G server. In practice it won't be quite that ideal, but reality never is.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." A. Einstein
I forgot the 5524 only had 2 10G ports. I thought there were 4.
Go with the Netgear 10G connected to your existing 1G switch.

 

[depasseg]

So it will do perfect balancing of all 1gb ports requesting data ( as long as they are not more than 10) unlike LACP which will balance sometimes when it decides ?! If I get it right it's sound great ?!?

Does your 1G switch have a 10G uplink?