• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can I connect multiple computers without a hub/switch/etc.? i.e. daisy chain them with 2 NIC's in each PC

L

Lifer

Banned
NOT talking about just TWO PC's with a cross-over cable... I'm talking a few, maybe 5-10.

I won't actually be doing this but I'm just wondering... obviously a central management point such as a hub would make it much easier. Not to mention the reduced cost/headaches of extra NIC's and cabling.

But is it possible to install 2 NIC's in each comp, assign each NIC a static IP, and then daisy chain them.
It makes logical sense to me... but is it possible?

Seems like it's missing a routing configuration or something.
I'm guessing the many hops from one node to another will result in a performance hit.
 
So is that a

1. YES, it would work?
or
2. No, it won't work
or
3. Yes, it'd work BUT with many problems?

It sounds like you're saying 3, but why?
What's wrong with Windows?
I'd think it'd be more a TCP/IP networking efficiency issue.
 
It depends how you do it. If you use Internet Connection Sharing I will suck badly. But if you stick with TCP/IP and have everything configured correctly it should work. But, the question REALLY is... why?
 
Doing it with every NIC having an IP would result in you having to run ICS on each computer in the line, and using different network blocks between each machine, so that each one acts as the gateway for the next PC down the line. ICS would use NAT on each computer to transfer traffic back and forth, which can cause major problems with so many translations happening.

An easier way, with WinXP, is to use the bridging network connection. Rather than setting up a card as a local area connection, you set it up as a bridging connection. Then that port just acts like a hub port. When your machine sends traffic, it gets broadcast out that port as well as your main NIC with an IP address. When a computer down the line sends traffic, it comes into the bridge port, which forwards the traffic to the OS and the OS accepts it as if it was sent from an outside connection into the primary NIC (the bridged NIC acts like a 2-port hub connected to the primary NIC).

I'm not sure if this can be daisy-chained beyond two machines though. I assume that when you set it up this way, all traffic would be broadcast between the machines all the way down the line, just like a hub. When the end computer sends traffic to your Internet connection gateway (router in many cases) it should be passed up the line as if there were several hubs on your network.

Another way to do it would be to get a single machine with several NICs all set up as bridges. But that'd make a really expensive repeater. 🙂

A switch can be had for 4 bucks after rebates these days, so there's really no reason to do anything else.

There would probably be a pretty good performance loss due to the repeating of traffic for no reason (since these wouldn't be "switched" ports) and the overhead of processing with two connections and the traffic from several machines. Might also be collision issues and limitations due to the number of hops.
 
Well you can get some 10 base T nics and a couple of terminators and run some coax from one machine to the other. There have been many offices hooked up that way in the not to distant past. You only need 1 nic in each machine.

Bleep
 
What you are trying to do is something called a bus topology where every node shares a common wire. Dont do this. Besides having to terminate the ends, If 1 cable goes bad, the whole network gets disrupted. A hub or cheap switch is a much better solution
 
Originally posted by: rc240sx
What you are trying to do is something called a bus topology where every node shares a common wire. Dont do this. Besides having to terminate the ends, If 1 cable goes bad, the whole network gets disrupted. A hub or cheap switch is a much better solution
Click to expand...

Use to support those type of networks...can you say "Nightmare".

Lifer was just curious.....as we'll all now! Thanks Lifer. Anyone got a couple hours, three pc's with XP Pro and 5 nics?
 
Originally posted by: Lifer
So is that a

1. YES, it would work?
or
2. No, it won't work
or
3. Yes, it'd work BUT with many problems?

It sounds like you're saying 3, but why?
What's wrong with Windows?
I'd think it'd be more a TCP/IP networking efficiency issue.
Click to expand...


Yeah it *should* work, but it's probably going to break and often.
 
BTW, you can bridge sequentially in XP. I have 3 computers hooked up this way (mostly because speed doesn't really matter) with the first two bridging the connections. It seems like each box doesn't know the box before it is bridging. But nyway, it's horribely inefficient for anything more than a couple boxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top