Port teaming questions

[MichaelD]

It's been awhile since I've done this so I need to ask for help.

I have a fileserver with a single gigabit port on a gigabit backbone serving about 30 users. It's a multi-use server. File storage (tiny, big, huge files), media streaming, backup archiving. I realize those uses don't necessarily mix, but you know how it goes in an office. "Oooh, storage space!" And before you know it, your shiny new backup box is doing 20 different things. It has a RAID5 array on a hardware card. I manage the fileserver through RDP, by its' IP addy.

I am installing an Intel PCI-E dual gigabit card to get more throughput. I have plenty of available gigabit ports on the switch. What is the best way to utilize my three gigabit ports?

Do I team all 3, using Intel's teaming utility? If I do that, the teamed port gets a single, static IP addy, correct? Can I even team all three, since the onboard gigabit LAN is a Realtek NIC?

Do I team just the two new ports on the card and give it the "file servers' IP?" Then what happens with the onboard port? I could give it a diff static IP and use it strictly for RDP access, right? But would that be a waste of a gigabit port?

I appreciate your comments and advice. Thanks for the help.

Mike D

 

[spidey07]

You won't be able to team all 3 because of different chipsets. Best thing would be to disable the onboard and then team the two intel cards. You'll also have to do the channeling/teaming on the switch itself. If the switch doesn't support it then you can't do it.

 

[MichaelD]

Thank you, Spidey07.

Wow, I didn't even think of the switch. Even if the two teamed ports on the card have a single static IP, I still have to configure the switch to support teaming? I didn't know that. I may have a problem, then.

I've got a small, 8-port, dumb switch (gigabit) that three servers are plugged into (remote closet). That dumb switch connects to a 48-port layer-2 (dumb) switch where the patch panel is for the user drops. Am I boned?

 

[spidey07]

You're boned. The switch needs to support link-aggregation or etherchannel. More robust managed switches will do it, but not dumb ones.

 

[MichaelD]

I just remembered I have an old US Robotics managed gigabit switch...noisy fan but the closet is cooled. Going by my memory of it's menu, I do believe it supports teaming.

So, how do I do this? Is this correct?

1. Disable onboard NiC
2. Use the Intel utility to team the 2 ports on the Intel card.
3. Assign static IP to teamed port
4. Go into switch menu, team Port-X and Port-Y?
5. Then????????

Thank you, Spidey07!

 

[spidey07]

Yes, that's what you would do. Makes it clean and simple. You generally don't want to put multiple IPs on a server unless you have a really good reason to.

 

[MichaelD]

Than you so much, Spidey07. Greatly appreciated.

One last question, please. Here is what my network looks like, basically (or will once I replace the switch). Will this get me the additional throughput I'm looking for?

Server with teamed GbE ports--->gigabit switch that supports teaming--->dumb gigabit switch<----users

 

[spidey07]

The bottleneck would be the connection between switches.

 

[MichaelD]

Understood. But theoretically, the server will be able to put more packets on the backbone, correct? Unfortunately, I have to use two switches. Due to the layout of the place and how the wiring was done, the server closet is on the other side of the facility from the wiring closet.

 

[freegeeks]

Understood. But theoretically, the server will be able to put more packets on the backbone, correct? Unfortunately, I have to use two switches. Due to the layout of the place and how the wiring was done, the server closet is on the other side of the facility from the wiring closet.

link aggregation is not perfect loadbalancing, depending on the algorithm, it's possible that you will saturate only one link

If you have 2 managed switched, you can also use link aggregation also on the trunk between them

lookup lacp, normally you can team up to 8 ports

 

[MichaelD]

I'm not sure I understand, freegeeks. I know what load balancing is; but that's not what I'm trying to do here. What I am trying to do is increase the bandwidth the server has to the network/clients.

All the clients are on a dumb, gigabit switch on one side of the building. The wiring closet is very, very small. The server room (big closet with an AC vent and a UPS...LOL!) is on the other side of the building. There is a single piece of CAT5E (single point of failure!) that connects the two closets. Gotta work with what I have. Running another line would add redundancy but they don't want to pay for it. Neither do they want to buy another smart switch. There happened to be this USR smart switch laying around; I'm pretty sure it supports link aggregation. That's as good as it will get in this case.

I figured that by giving the server increased bandwidth to the network, that should speed up data transfer when 30 people are hitting it at once. Ideally, the servers and clients would be on the same switch, or two switches linked by 10-gigabit connection. Not happening in this case.

 

[MichaelD]

The switch supports v-lans, port mirroring and port-based trunking. The trunking is what I want, right? "Trunking" is just another name for link aggregation, correct? Here's the switch.

http://www.usr.com/support/7716/7716-ug/index.html

 

[spidey07]

You're not likely to see any improvement in performance because it will still be limited by that single gig connection between the switches.

Trunking means carrying more than one vlan on a single link, not actual etherchannel (cisco) or LACP (link aggregation). Although I would be surprised if that switch didn't support link aggregation, it's got all the other basics of a managed switch.

 

[freegeeks]

I'm not sure I understand, freegeeks. I know what load balancing is; but that's not what I'm trying to do here. What I am trying to do is increase the bandwidth the server has to the network/clients.

All the clients are on a dumb, gigabit switch on one side of the building. The wiring closet is very, very small. The server room (big closet with an AC vent and a UPS...LOL!) is on the other side of the building. There is a single piece of CAT5E that connects the two closets. Gotta work with what I have.

you are making one logical pipe out of 2 physical connections, link aggregation is a form of loadbalancing, you are splitting traffic over 2 wires. At some point the bits and bytes are put on the wire. You are trying to increase the bandwith but that it is not a guarantee that you will actually have 2 Gbps. Some algorithms are flow based and will put all traffic from a certain flow on one link, ignoring the second link even when the first one is maxed out.

You should get at least 2 managed switches that give you lacp, vlans and 802.1q so you can make something of a proper Layer2 design. Putting everything (servers, clients) in the same L2 broadcast domain is asking for problems in a business environment. One infected client can start broadcast storms and bring the network down

good luck

 

[freegeeks]

The switch support port mirroring and port-based trunking. The trunking is what I want, right? "Trunking" is just another name for link aggregation, correct? Here's the switch.

http://www.usr.com/support/7716/7716-ug/index.html

tecnically for me trunking is transporting several vlans using ISL or 802.1Q on the same wire
does it say something about link aggregation or lacp?

maybe your switch supports vlan and 802.1q but not link aggegration

 

[MichaelD]

I need to read the whole manual. Man, I'm going to be upset if I can't get this to work. I appreciate your time and you sharing your knowledge, Spidey07 and freegeeks.

A quick Google says link agg is IEEE 802.3ad . This switch doesn't support that. Weird, being that it supports vlans and trunking.

OK, no link agg. Is there anything I can do with vlans to improve throughput with the dual gigabit card I have? Maybe set QoS for those two ports to "high?" Thanks again.

 

[spidey07]

To your question about improving performance with vlans? No. You're still stuck with that single gig link. But with such a small number of clients you really shouldn't be maxing out that single gig link anyway unless they're moving massive amounts of data. You're performance problem may lie somewhere else (duplex mismatch, cabling, etc). Even using windows network utilization monitor can show you how much that gig card is being used.

 

[MichaelD]

OK, what if I could get some of the clients AND the servers on the USR switch? That would eliminate the link b/t gigabit switches. Would I still be boned b/c that switch does not support 802.3ad?

 

[freegeeks]

I need to read the whole manual. Man, I'm going to be upset if I can't get this to work. I appreciate your time and you sharing your knowledge, Spidey07 and freegeeks.

A quick Google says link agg is IEEE 802.3ad . This switch doesn't support that. Weird, being that it supports vlans and trunking.

OK, no link agg. Is there anything I can do with vlans to improve throughput with the dual gigabit card I have? Thanks again.

short answer, no

I would recommend to get 2 new switches that support link aggregation. it will not only give you higher bandwith but also redundancy in your network against link failures. It doesn't have to be expensive, just cover the basics.

VLAN are used to properly segment your network, you do need a Layer 3 device to route from 1 vlan to another but we are going out of scope here

just get some new switches ;-)

 

[freegeeks]

OK, what if I could get some of the clients AND the servers on the USR switch? That would eliminate the link b/t gigabit switches. Would I still be boned b/c that switch does not support 802.3ad?

would not make a difference, bottleneck is the single 1Gig link going to the server.
It can only properly work if you have 1 big switch that support link aggregation, put the server on a link aggegragtion and the rest of the clients on 1g ports or 2 switches that support it to remove the bottleneck between the 2 switches (server is on link aggregation + the switches are connected through link aggregation

 

[MichaelD]

The issue is that there is so much happening on the network at once. 30 people streaming Youtube as well as training presentations that sit on the server. As well as email, constant read/writes to a DB server and whatever I may need to do as as Admin during the day. Backups run at night so while the files are huge, they are "out of the picture."

The file server runs Server 2003. IIRC I can log network traffic on it. All clients/servers have a 1GB connection to the network. Checked that already. No issues with corrupt data or anything like that.

 

[freegeeks]

The issue is that there is so much happening on the network at once. 30 people streaming Youtube as well as training presentations that sit on the server. As well as email, constant read/writes to a DB server and whatever I may need to do as as Admin during the day. Backups run at night so while the files are huge, they are "out of the picture."

The file server runs Server 2003. IIRC I can log network traffic on it. All clients/servers have a 1GB connection to the network. Checked that already. No issues with corrupt data or anything like that.

then you need a proper network design and some new hardware
there is no way around it

 

[MichaelD]

Thanks very much for the detailed explanations, freegeeks. I understand what's going on now. Now to convince the holder of the pursestrings they need new "computer stuff." This should be good. :help:

Thanks again, Spidey07 and freegeeks; you really helped me out.

I may be back with a "Does this switch look good?" question. Stay tuned.

 

[MichaelD]

then you need a proper network design and some new hardware
there is no way around it

Agreed. They should've done this correctly the first time around. This is a small office that I do some consulting work in. Was a tiny operation when they started. They grew, added users, threw in a server or two and now they have a "network" that needs help.

 

[freegeeks]

Agreed. They should've done this correctly the first time around. This is a small office that I do some consulting work in. Was a tiny operation when they started. They grew, added users, threw in a server or two and now they have a "network" that needs help.

I'm also in the consulting business, I see it all the time ;-)

good luck!!!