• 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.

Looking for a 48 port gbit switch with a 4 gbit uplink I can run to our server

C

chemwiz

Senior member
I've been looking at a lot of hardware and I'm pretty confused now. There's loads of 48 port switches out there, and some have 10gbit uplinks while some claim 4gbit, like this one http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ls?ie=UTF8&me=
I'd like to run a 4 or 10 gbit card in the server but 10 seems way over our budget. Any ideas would be great! Even if I can just run 2 cards in the server (Windows 2003 Enterprise) that are 1gbit each it would be a great help.

TIA!!!
http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url...lp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&user=u00000687
 
No such thing as 4 gbit ethernet. That switch has 4x 1g fiber ports.

If you want faster than 1g, you need 10g.
 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...d=1&name=4Gbps

That's a Newegg list of 4gbit PCI-E adapters, which is why I'm kind of confused. I've never set up anything faster than 1gbit, but there's about 30 computers accessing the one server now. All it's used for is file sharing and a few VPN's, but the files are getting larger (up to 100MB) so it's a bit slow when everyone is working on it. The 10gbit hardware is beyond the budget they're giving me, so I was hoping for a way to pep things up without going too far in the red 🙂
 
That link has 0 results...

If you need bandwidth, find an adapter that will support LACP and bundle away.

EDIT...nm...that brought me to the UK site..

Those are fiber channel cards. Not ethernet. Different uses and underlying tech.

You want something like this...
 
Last edited:
Those all look like they have 4 1gbit connectors. Will they give me a 4gbit data connection to the server? The HPA8002A looks like it actually supports a 4gbit from one port, but it's fiber so I'm not sure what I'd need to hook it up. A lot of the 48 port routers have 4 SFP ports, or can I just use 4 of the RJ45 1 gbit ports to get a 4 gbit connection to the server?

I'm really lost here, I don't understand what the 4 port cards actually do. I just want one 48 port gbit swith and a LAN card that will support a faster connection to the file server.

Thank you all for the help!!!
 
What are you trying to do?

Are you looking at aggregate bandwidth? Or are you looking at max distinct bandwidth?

For aggregate, LACP/link aggregation is what you want. It "joins" multiple ports together to provide that much bandwidth to a machine. So if you aggregate 4 ports, you'd have 4x1Gbps of bandwidth. This is AGGREGATE ONLY. Any single connection to the server is going to be at 1Gbps, but you can have multiple connections from many devices up to that limit of 4x1Gbps.

If you want higher distinct bandwidth, IE 4Gbps, there are two ways to do this. A 10GbE card, and a switch that can support 10GbE. Or you can use Windows 8/8.1 or Sever 2013. Both support something called SMB Multichannel it is a unique features that MS has in those products which is an add on to SMB3 protocol. It allows you to band multiple connections together for higher aggregate AND distinct bandwidth, without using LACP/Link aggregation (so it can be done through a dumb switch if you want). The OS effectively spawns multiple connections utilizing each network port.

For example, my desktop and server each have two 1GbE NICs in them. I get 235MB/sec (about 1880Mbps) of throughput between the two machines. I can also support roughly that much throughput when connecting my desktop and laptop to the server at the same time.

When I change and set my adapters to a team (IE link aggregation) and set my switch to aggregate those ports together, I get 117MB/sec between machines...the maximum for a single 1GbE link, but I can double that up with my laptop and desktop to get ~235MB/sec to the server at the same time between the two machines, but each is limited to 117MB/sec maximum...because of link aggregation.

So figure out what you need/want. If you want 4Gbps, you need SMB Multichannel with Win8/8.1/server 2013. If you just want 4x1Gbps, then any OS and link aggregation (and adpaters that support link aggregation/teaming) will work just fine.

For the later, your switch will also need to support LACP/Link aggregation. Keep that in mind.
 
Thanks azazel1024, I think that answered my question and will let me find the hardware I need at a reasonable price!
 
10 may be over your budget but that's the only option over gigabit. Find more budget if you actually need the bandwidth. Otherwise look at segmenting your network to better manage available bandwidth.
 
I picked up a 48 port switch and an Intel NIC that support LACP, so as soon as they come in I'll set them up. It worked out to about $700 total, so I can add some RAM to the server too 🙂
 
Thanks, I checked them both out carefully. I'm really grateful for all the help, and I can't wait to set it up and see how it works.
 
KillerBee said:
So for accessing a file server it wouldn't make a difference?
Click to expand...

Not really today. Jumbo frames exist to lower CPU processing of frames. 9000bytes = 1 frame vs 6 frames @ 1500mtu. However nearly every card that would properly support jumbo frames these days already uses offload engines anyway rendering a lot of benefit moot except for a tiny bit of efficiency in the raw frame transmission that really only appears as frame size approaches 100% of max. IE a jumbo frame segment will send smaller frames if that is all there is to send reducing the overall efficiency of the segment.

Once you head down the MTU incompatibility issues, devices that can't operate in the segment for whatever reason, TCP Fragmentation overhead etc etc you lose a lot of the benefit, possibly ending up at a net negative. Wireless is unable to operate in a jumbo frame network without the AP massaging the data etc etc
 
imagoon said:
Not really today. Jumbo frames exist to lower CPU processing of frames. 9000bytes = 1 frame vs 6 frames @ 1500mtu. However nearly every card that would properly support jumbo frames these days already uses offload engines anyway rendering a lot of benefit moot except for a tiny bit of efficiency in the raw frame transmission that really only appears as frame size approaches 100% of max. IE a jumbo frame segment will send smaller frames if that is all there is to send reducing the overall efficiency of the segment.

Once you head down the MTU incompatibility issues, devices that can't operate in the segment for whatever reason, TCP Fragmentation overhead etc etc you lose a lot of the benefit, possibly ending up at a net negative. Wireless is unable to operate in a jumbo frame network without the AP massaging the data etc etc
Click to expand...

Still is a benefit so long as everything is properly supporting the frames. You are looking at something like a 3-4% increase in performance for 9k jumbos over a standard 1500kb frame.

It ain't much, but it is still something.

It isn't simply reducing processor overhead. Packet headers, protocol headers, etc take up some amount of the payload space. Send fewer, bigger packets, and the protocol and packet headers are a proportionately smaller amount of the packet versus payload.
 
azazel1024 said:
Still is a benefit so long as everything is properly supporting the frames. You are looking at something like a 3-4% increase in performance for 9k jumbos over a standard 1500kb frame.

It ain't much, but it is still something.

It isn't simply reducing processor overhead. Packet headers, protocol headers, etc take up some amount of the payload space. Send fewer, bigger packets, and the protocol and packet headers are a proportionately smaller amount of the packet versus payload.
Click to expand...

Exactly as I mentioned. That 3-4% assumes 9000mtu frames approaching 100% Reality is that except storage, that isn't that common. Reducing the gains to something pointless like 1% while creating segment issues.
 
Dunno. I've never played network admin on a big network, but I've never seen any issues created by jumbo frames. That of course doesn't mean it can't happen.

Most of the time if you need a boat load of bandwidth, on anything BUT a really big network, it is because you are accessing storage, which means that 3-4% boost isn't necessarily a pointless gain or a rare gain either for that matter.
 
azazel1024 said:
Dunno. I've never played network admin on a big network, but I've never seen any issues created by jumbo frames. That of course doesn't mean it can't happen.

Most of the time if you need a boat load of bandwidth, on anything BUT a really big network, it is because you are accessing storage, which means that 3-4% boost isn't necessarily a pointless gain or a rare gain either for that matter.
Click to expand...

By the time you are looking at jumbo frames on LAN segment (before being laughed out of the room by your peers) you would be looking adding LAG groups or upgrading to 10gb, something that infinitely better supported.

The key thing with jumbo frames is *everything* on the segment has to support it.
Wireless AP? Ut oh!
That $49 HP printer? Ut oh!
PS3, PS4, Xbox, XBone? Ut oh!
SIP phone on your desk?
That network attached home alarm system?
Smart TV..
Any wireless devices?
The Internet? Ut oh!

Sure things can be fragmented at a router, except that you run in to "Do not fragment" on WAN paths etc.

All that jumbo frames net you less CPU interrupts and processing (good if you have a gutless NAS) but anything with TCP/IP offload engines will only net you the 4% protocol improvement and that is only with 100% utilization. Even if you get everything working with a 9000 MTU, you will only be able to get that 4% on your local LAN. Once that PS3 is streaming Netflix, you have a stream of 1500 mtu frames running around. Same with wireless devices etc.

The issues are the same with an Enterprise network. No one is going waste time configuring 1022 devices in a /22 for jumbo frames, verify that all 1022 devices can even support jumbo frame correctly and then deal with a packet fragmentation mess at the VPN / WAN when they can throw another $5 Ethernet cable in to the LAG group.

I'm not saying that the concept of Jumbo frames is bad. We use it all the time in our dedicated WAN for encapsulating crap to prevent fragmentation. It however is rarely if never worth it for the "desktop edge."
 
Except with 1500MTU, it doesn't break other things running at 9000MTU running through your network segments. So a PS3 streaming video isn't going to suddenly force down your desktop transfering files to your server.

Most desktop and laptop NICs support jumbo frames of some size as do most switches these days. Most of the time you are looking about caring on jumbo frames is with file transfers/storage access anyway. Those are the two devices most likely to put a real hurt on any server/NAS you are attempting to access.

Other non-jumbo frame devices on your network isn't going to mess with that.

Considering that 99 times out of 100 setting up jumbo frames is a 5 second configuration tick in the advanced properties of your wired network adapter and maybe also involves a minute to travel to your switch's admin console to do the same (assuming it isn't just enabled by default)...there is almost nothing to lose and at least a small efficiency gain to be had.
 
azazel1024 said:
Except with 1500MTU, it doesn't break other things running at 9000MTU running through your network segments. So a PS3 streaming video isn't going to suddenly force down your desktop transfering files to your server.

Most desktop and laptop NICs support jumbo frames of some size as do most switches these days. Most of the time you are looking about caring on jumbo frames is with file transfers/storage access anyway. Those are the two devices most likely to put a real hurt on any server/NAS you are attempting to access.

Other non-jumbo frame devices on your network isn't going to mess with that.

Considering that 99 times out of 100 setting up jumbo frames is a 5 second configuration tick in the advanced properties of your wired network adapter and maybe also involves a minute to travel to your switch's admin console to do the same (assuming it isn't just enabled by default)...there is almost nothing to lose and at least a small efficiency gain to be had.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. Streaming from that 9000mtu server to the PS3 will fail. Your home wireless (or corporate wireless) will fail connecting to those resources. You may find yourself unable to print to your network printer because the 9000mtu frame is being dropped by the printer.

The config you are describing is an MTU mismatch. Read up about MTU mismatches on VPNs (since there is a lot more documentation on the issue) or encapsulation in general. That applies to jumbo frames.
 
I'll take your word for it. I've never encountered issues with jumbos and doing any of the things you just mentioned.

I've done a fair amount of wire sharking and port mirroring on my network at various times for various reasons as well.
 
azazel1024 said:
I'll take your word for it. I've never encountered issues with jumbos and doing any of the things you just mentioned.

I've done a fair amount of wire sharking and port mirroring on my network at various times for various reasons as well.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I am stating that the gains are simply not worth it for the effort involved. If anything, I take it as: If my peers are not taking to do it on corporate LANs, then I likely shouldn't. Everything I have mentioned to you above is generally the reason I have been told they don't bother. I also have examples on my own network where I can't get to the GUI of some of the SAN and switch gear unless I switch my NIC to 9018 mtu or bigger. In jumbo frame mode they were sending packets that were larger than 1500bytes and my NIC was simply dropping them.

One of my projects was configuring out of band management from this reason as it caused ssh and SNMP to be flaky also making my monitoring project problematic.

You also may see in your wire sharking a lot of ICMP traffic during session setups. Some devices support PMTUD which helps eliminate these MTU problems if devices support it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top