Gigabyte Network "Teaming" and other Dark Arts!

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Good Evening Everyone.

Well, it has been a quite interesting adventure trying to figure out why "Teaming" will not readily initiate and function with the Gigabyte X38 and X48 motherboards. After much anguish and bitching, it seems that there a few "Dark Secrets" that haven't been exposed and which prevent the higher bandwidth "Teaming" feature from being implemented. However, relief is on the way - God willing.

I'm in the process of finalizing some more investigative steps to be able to fully (hopefully) discuss this elusive function in more depth and to also offer some tips as to how you must approach this dilemma. So please stay tuned for the next installment of the "Teaming Mysteries!"

Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle :D :beer:

 

Blazer7

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,136
12
81
Hello Mr Beagle,

I thought that you would have given up by now :). AFAICR you had no problem under XP but teaming never worked for you under Vista64. If you're really close to make this working I would be very interested to know how.
 

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Good Morning Mr. Blazer & Everyone.

The quest for an answer to the plaguing problem with being unable to activate Teaming with the X38/48-DQ6 Gigabyte motherboards, and probably the higher level P45 boards as well, may have now been resolved. At least I sure hope that is the case.

My continuing pursuit of the root causes of this issue has led me to be a bit of a pest with the folks at Gigabyte, and until very recently, was not yielding particularly good results. But as with some things in life, persistence sometimes does bear positive outcomes, and this endeavor may be one of those instances.

Since it took me quite a while to fully grasp the entire situation (I'm not positive that I still completely understand it), I will take my time to explain what I have learned, so hopefully others will have an easier time coming to grips with all of this. To say that the resolution is not readily apparent to the average user would be an understatement.

The story begins with a brief description of what Teaming is supposed to accomplish. Basically, Teaming is the joining of two (or more) physical network connections (NICs) in the computer to achieve greater bandwidth (throughput) than one of them could accomplish individually. Thus, two or more NICs are "Teamed" together to create a single virtual connection that allows more data to flow through that virtual connection, and the computer treats that "Teamed" connection as one link (for most purposes), but also provides some other benefits as well.

The "Teaming" of the motherboard NICs is accomplished by the Gigabyte software and effectively causes that "joining" of the onboard NICs into a single network connection. However, as it turns out, that "joining" can ONLY be fully implemented when the other end of the connections is likewise prepared to implement the Teaming effect. This is where the "Dark Secret" comes in. It now appears to me that my frustrating experiences in trying to implement Teaming were always destined to fail since I didn't fully understand the requirements of the "other half" of the equation.

That "other half" of the equation is the physical connection to the network, and that is where the Teaming implementation has failed me. Most of us connect to our home network either through the ports on a router and/or switch. And even though we may be using a gigabit router and/or gigabit switch, that's not enough to create Teaming. I will use my personal experiences with Linksys routers and gigabit switches to illustrate these important points.

I have been using a Linksys Model #WRT350N gigabit router for over a year. Generally speaking, it has given me good service, and I have it flashed with the latest firmware upgrade. This particular router has four (4) onboard gigabit ports to connect to a computer, switch(s) or other network devices. I ASSUMED that was all I needed for Teaming (I know the cliché about the word "assume" - it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me!" - LOL), but it's appropriate in this writing since I didn't understand what "else" was required to cause Teaming to come into operation. So, as a lot of folks might do, I plugged a Cat5e patch cord into each of the two X48 NICs and then into two of the gigabit ports on my router, and then tried to implement Teaming. Obviously, since I'm writing this piece, that experiment was a total failure - but I couldn't understand WHY?

Now we get to learn about the "Magic Words" - LINK AGGREGATION. Without Link Aggregation (LAG), Teaming is IMPOSSIBLE! However, before I explain how to implement Teaming, using LAG, I need to discuss the facts of life concerning most consumer level routers and switches. The plain fact of life is that these devices do NOT have LAG functionality. And without LAG, Teaming appears to be impossible. I am told (by some reliable sources) that the consumer level router and switch manufacturers have intentionally not implemented the LAG function in those entry level devices due to very limited consumer demand (up until now) and to keep the price-point ($) of those devices as low as possible.

Generally speaking, unless you have a commercial grade router, there is virtually no likelihood that LAG can be implemented among the ports on your consumer grade router. The same statement can also be made for consumer grade switches as well. I will now use three (3) different levels of Linksys 8 port, gigabit switches to illustrate my explanation of the LAG function. These three switches are: Model #SD2008, Model #SLM2008, and Model #SRW2008 (lowest to highest grading). In order to explain this issue, the reader also needs to know about the terms: Unmanaged Switch (Model #SD2008), Smart Switch (Model #SLM2008) and Managed Switch (Model #SRW2008).

The entry-level, consumer oriented switch is the Model #SD2008, which is totally unmanaged. You just take it out of the box, connect the network cables and power supply, and fire it up. It works as a "dumb" hub, allowing any device connected to it to be interconnected to other devices on that network. It cannot be "addressed" (that means controlled in any form or function), and it does not have the capability of having any of its pre-set internal functions altered or controlled from another location (computer) on the network. It just allows devices on the network to communicate with each other.

On the other end of the scale is the business level switch, Model #SRW2008, which is a Layer 2 managed device (managed switches come in Layer 2 and an even higher Layer 3 level). Virtually all of the sophisticated functions of the managed switch can be addressed through software control. Many of these higher level functions are likely beyond the needs (and possibly the functional usability) of the average enthusiast computer junkie. However, the LAG function is part of the vast array of features available in almost all managed switches.

In between the Unmanaged and Managed switch levels has very recently emerged a mid-level switch, commonly known as Smart switches. The Smart switches are addressable, but usually have a limited sub-set of functions which can be controlled by software. These Smart switches are also only slightly more expensive than the Unmanaged variety, and most importantly, the Smart switches have the LAG function!

Let me now explain (as best as I can) the LAG function. In order for the network to provide a bigger (fatter) pipeline for data transmission than what could be ordinarily achieved through a single NIC connection, the joining of multiple network sources (ports) must be accomplished at the SOURCE connection to the network. In other words, it does you no good to try to implement Teaming at the computer end of the connection, if the "other end" (switch) is not capable of joining (aggregating) multiple ports together to provide that fatter pipeline. Different switch manufacturers may implement LAG differently, although they all conform to a set international standard, but the result (if instituted properly) will be the same - successful activation of Teaming.

I will use the Linksys Smart Switch, Model #SLM2008, for this example. You address the switch through your web browser (very similarly as to how you might already address your router - but with a different address). The Linksys switch addressing format is very similar to its router format, using multiple Tabs across the top of the screen. Under the Port tab, there are various sub-tabs which is where you select two specific ports on the switch to join together (aggregate), and once aggregated, they function as if they were one port. Once this is accomplished, the Gigabyte Teaming software will respond to this LAG, and implement a Teamed connection to your network. See how simple that is - LOL!

So to recap this most important portion of this lengthy explanation (apologies to the readers), in order to implement Teaming you MUST have a network Source that implements LAG. No LAG - No Teaming! It's as simple as that. Now I would be remiss if I didn't both thank and criticize the Technical Support folks at Gigabyte for their heretofore failure to disclose the absolute necessity to have a LAG enabled network source if you want to enable Teaming. I invite you to check out all of the Gigabyte advertising literature, user's manuals, Teaming supplement, etc. etc. etc. I don't believe that you will find an explanation similar to the foregoing anywhere in that whole volume of information. On the other hand, Mr. Colin, and very recently his colleague, Mr. Rockson, from the Gigabyte Sales Department (TW), have been quite helpful. In fact, it was Mr. Rockson's most recent response to an email I sent him that fully illuminated this problem and it's probable solution.

However, although this situation is NOT the same as the fiasco associated with the failed N680i board, it nevertheless is, at least in part, an advertising failure. Gigabyte must have known that Unmanaged routers and switches were incapable of implementing Teaming (at least they damn well ought to have known it), but utterly failed to inform the consumers that specific network source requirements were necessary for Teaming to function. Shame on you Gigabyte for not disclosing those critical facts, and causing a lot of us (myself included) many frustrated hours trying to implement an advertised function that had no hope of success without the proper source connection (LAG)!

I hope that the foregoing is of some assistance to the members and readers. Again, I apologize for the length of this posting, but I didn't know how else to explain it properly without this level of discussion.

Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle :D :beer:





 

Blazer7

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,136
12
81
Hello Mr Beagle,

So I take it that this never really worked for you under Xp also, right? At this point do you have a LAG capable router/switch as to actually test this? AFAIK the new GA-EP45-DQ6 supports teaming across all 4 of its ports. It would be interesting to see if anyone tries this and how this performs in real world.
 

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Hello Mr. Blazer & Everyone.

I have a SLM2008 on order as I write this reply. Although I haven't yet "tested" it, there seems to be no reason that it won't work (God willing, of course).

You are correct about the Teaming and XP, since I was a very early adopter for Vista, and was using that OS by the time Teaming came on the scene. As you may recall, I tried Teaming with the N680i board (which used nVidia software for implementation) after the earliest version with Teaming became available (August, 2007), but it never functioned properly (now I know why) either.

After re-examining the various emails and PMs that I received over the course of many months from the Tech Support folks at Gigabyte (and a few relayed by Mr. Gary and Mr. Colin), coupled with my current research into this issue, I can now see that the LAG factor was the critical element that was missing from all that discourse. Once you analyze the situation in a logical fashion, the need for the LAG function in the Smart/Managed switch becomes patently obvious. In a sense the solution was "hiding in plain view" once you understand how it all works.

In reality, Teaming is a rather simple, but nevertheless somewhat elegant, solution to the need for additional bandwidth. I see no reason that you couldn't aggregate 4 ports on a Smart switch for one helluva fat pipeline into and out of your network, using the new P45 boards with 4 NICs. That ought to be something to behold!

Anyway, as soon as I get the SLM2008 switch, you can be damn sure that I'll give it a run for its money and report back on the results. I've been waiting too long to be denied now!

Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle :D :beer:

 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,310
687
126
Interesting. I thought all routers/switches (at least by the time when gigabit was introduced) were standardized for teaming. Do they advertise or make note on the product's packaging whether the switch is teaming-ready or not? How can one tell whether a switch is capable of link aggregation or not, other than doing a leg work?
 

Blazer7

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,136
12
81
The biggest problem is that very few know of link aggregation and what it does. Things would have been much easier for people if they knew what to look for. Searching for link aggregation immediately produced some very interesting results. Unfortunately, as TheBeagle mentioned above, most of the switches that support LAG are targeted at the business segment and thus way beyond of the reach of the average Joe. This is probably the reason why mobo makers do not disclose this kind of info. Telling people that they need to spend way more on a switch than they did for their mobo is not a great selling point.

Wikipedia Link aggregation

Newegg Link aggregation results
 

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,330
17
76
Link Aggregation is also known as 'trunking'. This wording is most commonly used with D-Link switches.....I am amazed no network technicians saw this thread and advised you teaming wouldn't work unless you had an inteligent switch at the other end configured for trunking?!

Mr Beagle, can you please tell us what you have in mind once your 2Gb network link is up and running, do you have other PC's on you network that will benefit from this bandwidth?
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
Originally posted by: SolMiester
Link Aggregation is also known as 'trunking'. This wording is most commonly used with D-Link switches.....I am amazed no network technicians saw this thread and advised you teaming wouldn't work unless you had an inteligent switch at the other end configured for trunking?!

That's because this is posted in Motherboards and not Networking. ;) Trunking... yeah, that rings a bell. Had some switches years ago at work that can trunk up to four 10/100 ports. It also had various other features such as VLANs and misc other stuff. PITA to configure because no web config. Everything had to be done through the console (serial crossover using terminal software). Archaic, I know. However, seemed pretty awesome a decade ago to a networking noob like me (at the time).
 

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,330
17
76
Ahhh, yes, quite right....! What a shame, hate to think of the hours he spent gaining that knowledge when there is probably several hundred forum users who could of explained the issue!...nevermind!
 

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Good Evening Everyone.

The Link Aggregation (LAG) element was not apparent to me because I did not realize that the Teaming software supplied by Gigabyte ONLY created the port joining on the computer (motherboard) side of the network connection. I thought that having a gigabit network port source at the router/switch end was all that I needed, and that everything would fall into place - That assumption was my downfall all this time. Maybe all of this delay in finding out about LAG was beneficial, since had I known it much earlier, I probably would have spent a lot of extra money on a fully managed switch which is quite a bit more expensive than the Smart switch that I'm about to receive. Smart switches that are much more reasonably priced seem to have just appeared on the scene in the past few months.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the Gigabyte literature, advertising, etc, does it even hint that anything "else" was required for the Teaming effect to become operational. As I stated in my earlier posting, I invite you to scour the Gigabyte sources for that type of information, maybe you can find it, but I sure couldn't. And considering the number of PMs and emails that I have had with the Tech Support folks at Gigabyte, and the number of times that it was discussed on the Motherboard Forum of AT, no one ever told me (us) about the necessity for a Managed or Smart switch which provides the LAG function. Maybe I'm wrong, but don't you think that Gigabyte had a duty to inform its customers in its advertising and user manuals, etc about the necessity for a LAG equipped network source in order for Teaming to function?

So, I was left pursuing it one my own, and trying to fit the little bits and pieces of information I could find together until it made sense. As Mr. Blazer stated, all of this hide and seek routine with implementing Teaming was at least partially due to the fact that Gigabyte (and some of the other major board makers who are now offering Teaming in their products) probably didn't want to scare away customers who may have been considering a purchase of one of their higher cost boards by informing the potential customer that another piece of hardware was required to make it all work.

I do have a X38-DQ6 board that has Teaming capability that will be going into a small server, so the answer is yes to Mr. SolMiester's question about the use for the fatter pipeline. The word "trunking" was never used by the Gigabyte folks, even though they did suggest several D-Link switches (Layer 2 stuff) in the final email that got me onto the right track for the necessity for LAG.

I have received an email confirmation from the Egg that my new Linksys SLM2008 Smart Switch has been shipped this afternoon. With any luck I should have it on Wednesday, and give a try. I'll let you all know how that turns out.

Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle :D :beer:

 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Gigabyte is probably not the best source for this sort of support, as it ultimately relies on the underlying network chipset and driver provider -- Realtek. OTOH, you might not have any chance to contact Realtek support directly, as they might not want to talk to consumers and would rather leave that problem with the motherboard vendor.

That said, odds are that trunking won't do what you're out to achieve, if what you're out to achieve is > 1 Gb/s throughput on a single network conversation, e.g. a single file transfer. Here's a doc which goes into some of the variations and issues.

http://www.alacritech.com/Supp...Documents/Teaming.aspx

There are a couple of common misconceptions about link aggregation that cause people to have unrealistic expectations of resultant performance. The first is that link aggregation automatically multiplies your network throughput by the number of links in the team, regardless of connection type, environment, etc. This assumption is incorrect. Link aggregation increases your total throughput (when set up properly), but will not increase an individual connection's throughput at all. That is to say; if you can do a file copy at 50MB/sec on a single gigabit link, if you create a team, your speed for that file copy will still be exactly the same. If you do the same copy simultaneously from multiple clients, your total throughput will increase, but the copy time for any individual file will either remain the same or possibly [increase], depending on resource contention. The reason for this is that all of the common link aggregation protocols require that a given conversation must be carried across a single link at a time.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
Hey, you guys want me to move this thread to Networking?

TheBeagle, I'm looking forward to your results.
 

Blazer7

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,136
12
81
Hello Mr Zap,

The guys at Networking probably know a lot more on this but the guys here in Motherboards don?t. IMHO it is better to leave this here as the topic is not just about networking but also about the mobo manufacturers policy on not disclosing all info related to this feature to their customers.

Shedding some light on this may turn out to be quite beneficial for some ppl here in Motherboards. Understanding how a specific feature works along with its requirements and overall functionality may change how ppl look at teaming and how this specific feature affects their final decision when purchasing a mobo.
 

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,330
17
76
Mr Beagle, does\will your server have a NIC\Team to the switch which will rec'd said aggregated bandwidth?.....No good having all that bandwidth if its only to the switch.......I think the best function of your teamed motherboard NIC's, will be fault-tolerance, especially if you have mapped drives back to the server.
 

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Good Evening Everyone.

Well, I'm very pleased to announce that "The Eagle Has Landed!"

After these many, many months of searching for an answer as to WHY Teaming would not initiate on my X38/48-DQ6 systems, it has come down to the simple fact that I needed a Smart Switch to provide the Link Aggregation (LAG) for the Gigabyte software to complete the Teaming function. WOW, who would have believed it was as simple as that.

The Linksys Model #SLM2008 Smart Switch arrived as promised from the Egg, and after supper I installed it in my system. At first I tried to manually set the link speed to Full Gigabit on both ends (computer and switch) but the Teaming software didn't like that a bit. So I reset the link speed on both ends to auto-negotiate, and that's all it took. After a reboot, the system automatically implemented the mini-port Teaming driver as Connection #3, and the status windows on the network shows that a single 2Gbps link is in full operation.

Obviously, I haven't had a chance to test the throughput as of yet, but it already seems much more responsive on my internal network, and even on the Internet. I'll keep playing with it, but for right now IT WORKS, and I'm quite pleased to get it in operation.

BTW, the Linksys folks make both a 5 port and an 8 port smart switch. There's about a 20 dollar difference between them, so I'd definitely recommend the 8 port unit. The web addressing worked like a charm, all you have to do is enter the switch address (192.168.1.254) in the browser, and it instantly finds the switch. The rest is likewise very easy, just click on the Port tab, and then the Link Aggregation sub-Tab, and then just select on the ports that are attached to the Cat5e cables coming from the motherboard. Save the settings, and your good to go for running the Teaming software. After that a reboot, and there you have it. It couldn't have been simpler.

Hope all of this has been some help to others. Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle :D :beer:

 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: TheBeagle
After a reboot, the system automatically implemented the mini-port Teaming driver as Connection #3, and the status windows on the network shows that a single 2Gbps link is in full operation.

That's nice, but it'd be better to have some benchmarks demonstrating actual throughput, if you're promoting this solution.
 

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Good Morning Mr. MadWand1 & Everyone.

Mr. MadWand1: The object of my lengthy endeavor was to get the Teaming function to become operational. Whether or not I advocate this feature to others remains to be seen. As time permits, I may engage in some comparative testing to determine the throughput of the fatter pipeline in my internal network environment, but that's not a present priority for me. Thank you for the link to the Alacritech article. It was most informative.

For the sake of the collective enlightenment of multi-port motherboard owners, I hope that my struggle with this Teaming issue has made it easier for others to implement Teaming, should they choose to do so. In retrospect, although I wasn't fully appreciating it at the time, this little adventure with Teaming has caused me to learn a bit more about the operational structure of networks, and the associated hardware like routers and switches. From that perspective, it has been a positive experience.

Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle

 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
I've had the best luck with LAG and Teaming on Intel NICs. This has been my experience with Linksys switches though. Broadcom will never be run in another server that i maintain.


BTW I didn't read everything as this thread is quite lengthy, but why did you need teaming in the first place?

You would be hard pressed to max out Full duplex 1Gb. And teaming is not going to let you achieve 2Gb, it's more theoretical than anything on a desktop setup not in a server enviro.
 

Blazer7

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,136
12
81
Originally posted by: mooseracing
BTW I didn't read everything as this thread is quite lengthy, but why did you need teaming in the first place?

You would be hard pressed to max out Full duplex 1Gb. And teaming is not going to let you achieve 2Gb, it's more theoretical than anything on a desktop setup not in a server enviro.

We are not talking about server hardware here so why would anyone need teaming ?

Teaming is not the only issue here. Another one is the fact that mobo makers do not provide their customers with all the needed info on this specific feature while they do advertise their products as being capable of teaming. Letting ppl know of what teaming requires, what it's real use is and what they can expect from it makes it much easier to evaluate the need of that feature.
 

jaggerwild

Guest
Sep 14, 2007
430
0
0
Hey Mr. Beagle,
Great read! I read it all as I have this board, and thats why it was posted to help others. So thank you for the foot work you did and for posting the findings too.
One question, do I need one of the said two switches to make this work then? I have a linksys wireless-G router 2.4gig broadband will that work?
Good day:thumbsup:
 

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Hello Mr. Jagger & Everyone.

To Mr. Jagger: It's nice to hear from you. What you need is either a Managed or Smart Switch that has the Link Aggregation (LAG) function. The most inexpensive ones that I found are the Linksys SLM2005 (5 Port) or SLM2008 (8 Port). Your Linksys router does NOT have LAG, so that device will not be able to provide the necessary network connection ports for Teaming to function. As was pointed out by several posters on this Thread, Teaming is only a real benefit when other computers, which also have Teaming, are connected to the SAME SWITCHING DEVICE. In other words, in order to get any benefit from the greater throughput obtained from Teaming (fatter pipeline) there have to be at least two computers communicating with each other, and passing through the same switching device, that each have Teaming. Without those common elements, Teaming is unlikely to offer any greater benefit than a single gigabit connection, of course, aside from fail safe redundancy.

So, if you have a home/office network, and two or more computers have the Teaming function, i.e., home server and workstation PC, then you could get greater throughput on that connection if both computers implement Teaming, and both pas through the same switch. Remember, that you eat up two Ethernet ports for each Teaming connection, so just two computers will utilize 4 gigabit ports on the switch. That's why I recommended the 8 port switch for an extra 20 bucks. Hope that offers some help.

Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle :D :beer:

 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: jaggerwild
do I need one of the said two switches to make this work then? I have a linksys wireless-G router 2.4gig broadband will that work?

Strangely enough, it's possible for the Linksys to do teaming via third-party firmware, but even if it can, it's not worth attempting because it's a 100 Mb/s device, and you'd be far better off with a gigabit one.

Just going to gigabit is also about as far as you can improve home LAN performance these days. Despite the marketing of teaming, and dual NICs, etc., it really doesn't work in practice as you'd think, and it takes you a lot of money and effort to discover that, as TheBeagle still has to do, unfortunately.
 

MadAd

Senior member
Oct 1, 2000
429
1
81
This is like holding out a candy to a child and whipping it away at the last second!

Mr Beagle, now you have whetted our appetite with the how, would you do us the service of getting a free network bandwidth tester, running the test, then pulling out one of the cables and running it again please?

Very pretty please with knobs and shiny flowers on? :)
 

TheBeagle

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
508
0
0
Good Morning Mr. MadAd & Everyone.

Well Mr. MadAd, I suppose that I could spend a bunch of time fooling around with throughput measurements once I get the server also functioning with Teaming. Although, I'm quite sure that I don't have, nor am I likely to spend money to obtain, the high-tech testing equipment that one would need to properly conduct such testing. In reality, I was just damn glad to find out HOW to get Teaming to function, let alone start some additional comparative testing routine.

However, I'm unfortunately forced to report that the size of the clutter in my garage has reached the critical overflow threshold, and therefore a good cleaning and de-junking in currently underway. So my immediate available time for such collateral matters is presently quite curtailed.

Thus, any such testing endeavors will surely have to wait on more mundane and personal, but nevertheless necessary, environmental cleanup procedures. However, please feel free to undertake those same testing procedures yourself, and I'll be most pleased to hear what bits of enlightenment you have discovered.

Best regards to everyone. TheBeagle :D :beer: