Daisy chaining computers to form a network

[Just Checking]

This is a related question and I didn't want to start a new thread just for this.

I have several servers that I installed Intel i350-T4 ethernet cards in giving me 5 ethernet ports per server. Can I directly connect one, or more, ethernet port directly to one, or more, other server(s) on the same network as well as connecting other ethernet ports to an unmanaged switch with a router?

1. Will that work without conflicts?
2. If it does work, will I see any performance improvement over just connecting those ethernet ports to the unmanaged switch?

I am in the process of migrating a very large library (20TB) of media files from one server to another and find that my gigabit ethernet gets very bogged down when migrating data on a hard drive or NAS from one system to the other. I was hoping that I could use the extra gigabit ethernet ports to directly connect from one server to the other server(s) without the overhead of the switches and router; while still maintaining the network connectivity of all the servers.

 

[azazel1024]

Ugh. Just ugh.

I guess you could do that, but you'll have to make sure you enumerate network shares using the IP address of the direct connections instead of the machine name or the IP of the ports connected through the regular network.

If you are having performance problems, what you need to do is setup semi-managed or managed switches and link aggregation between the dispirate parts of your network. This will allow higher bandwidth between machines and switches and improve things. Alternately you can have Win8/8.1/server 2012 on the machines and then use multiple links from each machine to your switch(s) and that'll leverage SMB multichannel for faster transfers. It'll only work on/between the windows machines though, not to linux/OSX/NAS.

What is your actual network topography?

Several servers and 20TB of data sounds like you could easily afford a 16-48 port semi-managed L2 switch to do this with, since many are <$200. Or considering prices, if the machines are physically close to each other, an SFP+ card in each machines and twinax SFP+ transceiver to go in those cards for 10GbE speeds.

 

[Just Checking]

Thanks for the information.
If I understand what you stated, I need to set up individual IP addresses for each ethernet port on each server (already done) then "enumerate network shares" on each server to make it use those ports when communicating with another server. How do I do that? Since these ports are direct connected to other ports on a different server, I cannot use the port forwarding feature of the router. Is there a link to a tutorial on how to set this up with Windows 7 64-bit Pro OS?

I do have a 48-Port Netgear L2 managed switch and a couple 24-port L2 Cisco managed gigabit switches. They are fan type and hence somewhat noisy which is why I am currently using a 24-port ZyXel unmanaged switch for my main "unsecure" network.

I am kind of in transition right now with the networking being only a "minor" hobby. The whole multiple-server thing kind of grew up (blew up) on me from building a media library and trying to manage that with first XBMC, then PLEX and having that available from outside my network.

Since I never envisioned that I would ever be processing, transferring, or even storing this much information over the number of servers (4 and counting) and client devices, I didn't install more than 4 ethernet drops in any one room (spaced on different walls). With servers that have multiple gigabit ethernet ports and the large amount of information I regularly transfer (100's of GB/day) right now, my current gigabit ethernet network is overwhelmed. That's why I purchased the L2 managed switches awhile ago to do link aggregation. I just have not got around to implementing that solution since it would require running more CAT6 ethernet cables at certain drop points.

I did look at SFP's and 10GB tranceivers. That would work between servers which isn't the only bottleneck. I have a couple NAS boxes running on USB 3.0 connections and they regularly crash when I am trying to transfer 3-4TB from one HDD to another. I think this is a problem with the NAS box, and probably not the network but it is still frustrating. I also process information on client workstations and transfer that to the servers. If I start sending large files (10+GB) between multiple clients and the servers, things really slow down.

My network changes on a regular basis. I have not been very good at updating my network architecture diagrams. My apologies for that since I cannot provide you with all the information you need to give me the answers that I requested.

BTW - I am currently running Windows 7 64-bit Pro OS on all my clients and servers. It simplifies everything for me. I don't like Windows 8/8.1, though I do acknowledge that there are some very few features which give it some small advantages, for those applications, that I could use right now. Similarly, I have not spent the money to put Server 2012 on my servers ($370 per license for the cheapest one is a little steep for me). I figured that I would investigate that OS more fully when I have more time.

 

[azazel1024]

For example, pull up run and then do //192.168.1.2 if that is the IP of the server the one machine is connected to through a direct connection. If you have permissions, that'll pull up the network share. Then just map that share to a network drive. You have to set static IP addresses on the direct connections.

It sounds like you have the gear, but need to implement it for link aggregation, which would certainly help things out some to keep from clogging any single channel.

For Windows 8/8.1...no, it isn't small improvements. Instead of doing LAG, SMB Multichannel and the NT6.2/.3 networking stack allow you to connect multiple NICs to a dumb switch and will do both pseudo link aggregation without switch support and will ALSO allow you to so SMB Multichannel. SMB Multichannel between machines that support it allow bonding of connections. So if you have two Gigabit ports per machine connected to the switch, you can get 2Gbps of actual bandwidth between the machines. That is how I have my current Win 8 server and Win 8.1 desktop setup. I am not a huge fan of 8, but 8.1 isn't so bad and the networking performance differences very much make up for the blemishes.

235MB/sec file transfers are a very nice thing (and LAG won't do that, at least not from one source to one source).

There isn't really anything on Server 2012 I need, so I just run Win 8 pro (eventually I'll wipe and install Win 8.1 pro, just keep coming up with reasons why I don't want to spend the time to do that) on my server and 8.1 on my desktop.

That and it sounds like you need to consolidate machines, in a big way. 4 servers, plus multiple NAS boxes and a bunch of clients...

Granted, you very well might be doing a heck of a lot more than I do (and more spare time) and you certainly have massively more data...but it sounds like consolidation in to a single primary server and a spare would likely be the way to go for a lot of reasons.

Also, is the 20TB needed? I assume yes, but...let me guess? RAW BR ISOs and not transcoded MKV/MP4s? Consider just transcoding the data. Saves a massive amount of space and short of extremely discerning eyes, you are very rarely going to notice the difference between the two. 40% of my stuff is transcoded 720p, 50% transcoded 480p and about 10% transcoded 1080p at extremely high quality and my total of ~600 movies and 700 TV episodes works out to around 1TiB of data (with another ~700GiB of family pictures and videos, MP3s, application backups, documents, etc). If I wanted to sit down today and watch every single thing, it would take me something like >6 months of continuous non-stop watching to actually watch everything.

I recently culled it by around 80 movies and a couple of TV series because my wife and I looked at what we had and tried to figure out what we'd ever realistically watch (and a bit of "well, it's on Netflix and we don't really care about it, so delete it and donate the DVD/BR"). Trying to only keep the stuff we know we'll watch again some day or is at least fairly likely we'll watch again or want to watch again some day.

20TiB of data is around $1,000 of storage...assuming it isn't 20TiB spread across 4 machines and is 20TiB on each machine...that is a HUGE amount of money spent on storage and how much of it is wasted? Especially since ideally you should have at least a primary and a backup of anything that matters, and best practice is a primary, a backup and a backup of the backup (ideally offsite).

 

[Just Checking]

Thanks for the useful information.

Azazel1024 wrote:
"For example, pull up run and then do //192.168.1.2 if that is the IP of the server the one machine is connected to through a direct connection. If you have permissions, that'll pull up the network share. Then just map that share to a network drive. You have to set static IP addresses on the direct connections."

If I interpret this correctly, you want me to set a static IP address in each port of each server (easily done), then open a browser window and input the network address of the other servers ethernet ports individually that I want to connect to and map that port to a particular network drive. I am not sure how to do that. I will have to research that...

My experiences with Windows 8/8.1 are limited to working on some friends P.C.'s that have it and I was not pleased. The standard complaints. Having the standard desktop interface and start icons back certainly helps for me since I don't have touch screens. Based on your input and the potential ability to create domains with Windows 8.1 gives me incentive to try it out... with a little more time.

I have multiple servers because 1. I have a separate server that is a secure data server; 2. I have servers that are media servers and; 3. I have servers that are my transcoding/ripping/back-up servers; and 4. This is a Hobby. These are quiet, energy efficient, low end servers like desktop workstations (HP Proliant N54L Microserver for the data server, and Lenovo TS-140 Thinkservers for the media/transcoding) so they don't have the high end multi-CPU motherboards or Xeon 12-core CPU's in them. The TS-140's have Xeon E3-1225 v3 CPU's which are equivalent to a decent Intel i5-4570 quad core at 3.2GHz only with more cache memory. The cost of the TS-140 Thinkservers on sale is less than a good diskless NAS and a lot more powerful. The price of a TS-140 on sale is less than a i7-4790 CPU by itself on sale. Hence, the multiple servers. The cost of three TS-140 servers was under US$1000 (less than the cost of an 8-core i7-5680X CPU) plus the cost of upgrading RAM, HDD's, SSD's, NIC's, SATA controller cards, and software. Those end up to be much more than the cost of the servers but that is the price you pay to get the storage and performance.

The 20TB of media files are indeed both .iso and .mp4/.m4v files. I rip the disks into .iso files and transcode them into .m4v files to work on PLEX. So yes, I have both the .iso version and .m4v version of the same movie. My transcoding is to a high level so the files take a long time to transcode from the .iso disk image file and uses a HUGE amount of CPU power. I also have many more movie and TV episodes than you do. I do try to do backups of the transcoded media files because that is where my investment of time is mostly. As you know, it only takes about 15 minutes to rip an .iso file of a disk but it can take 12-16 hours to transcode a disk with multiple TV show episodes. The transcoded files are also smaller than the .iso files so I do not have to invest as much to back them up.

Music files are much smaller but can still take up a lot of space if you do the ripping to .mp3's at 320kbps. I rip those at the highest quality I can because I can always downgrade to a smaller file size from those but I can never go up in quality except by re-ripping the original disk. I have about 1.5TB of music files alone. I can also back them up to an external HDD easily. It just takes time; even with USB 3.0 connections.

I have about 2TB of Photos in various forms. It doesn't take long if you are taking photos in raw format. I try to purge the files but they build up over time.

Is it really necessary to have all this? The secure data server and separate network - YES. I use this for my businesses and for nothing else. It is also my business and absolutely need those files with multiple backups. I don't count that equipment as part of this.

Do I need 3 media servers and all that storage, routers, switches, network cables, and other accouterments? The answer is NO. A cost/benefit analysis easily indicates that I can subscribe to Amazon Prime, Netflix, and purchase all the first release movies/shows for the next 20+ years for less than the cost of the hardware I have. If I take into account the time and frustration this has cost me (just getting PLEX set up to reliably connect to an outside network cost me 100's of hours of my time alone) and I will never recoup my investment, ever.

Even if I just had one server as a PLEX server and downloaded Torrent files (I don't do that since it is Illegal, easily traceable, and takes a huge amount of internet bandwidth and time) and media boxes to service the HDTV's and client PC's doesn't really pay compared to just subscribing to Amazon Prime and purchasing stuff on a Roku account.

A decent antenna and OTA Broadcast channel tuner/converter like a SiliconDust HDHR-4 combined with a HDTV and media box easily calculates out to be a positive NPV compared to cable, dish, or satellite services if you can get the programming channels in your location. I got all of those for less than US$100 total plus the time it took to install them and set them up. I get 36+ different OTA channels. Eight of those in HD. Combined with the "free channels" of the Roku box takes care of almost all needs. Adding the Amazon Prime programming pretty much tops the cake. I record programming from the OTA broadcast channels on one of my servers because I have it already. If I didn't have the server, it would be cheaper just to buy a standalone DVR and put a HDD on it (or on the router) if I needed extra storage.

Since I almost never watch TV or movies anyway, it just benefits my family.

I tell this to all my family and friends - Don't do this. I do it because it is a Hobby. My payback is in knowledge and satisfaction.

 

[azazel1024]

Nah, because it is fun is a damned good reason to do it. I just know people who have accumulated a frankenstein mess of a network for no particular good reason and it isn't because they enjoy it.

If you pull up the run and type in \\ip address of server network port

That'll then open file explorer with the network share open. On the top bar should be "Map Network share" as one of the options. Do that and set the drive letter.

Altenately when doing back-ups or transfers you can just set the network share target to \\ip address\folder name.

So you can enter "xcopy \\192.168.1.3\movies" as an example, or at least very similar syntax as that.

You only need to set static IP addresses of the direct connected ports. The ones that are connected to the main network can be left as DHCP ports. The problem with using the machine name is you don't know then if Windows will decide to use the direct connected port, or if it'll use the main network port. Probably the easiest and cleanest way to do this though is still LAG and connect up the ports to the main network and allow LAG/load balancing to do its thing.

Or again, Windows 8.1 and SMB Multichannel, as that'll also allow significantly higher speeds between the servers.

Also, yeah, I feel you on the transcoding. With my quality settings (which is just about every quality nit set and all of the very low loss compression bits on) I get around 5-8FPS for 1080p to 1080p and about 20-25FPS for 1080p to 720p transcodes using Handbrake. That is with an i5-3570 at 4GHz. At some point I really want to look at Haswell-E for the low end hexacore, but my budget isn't going to allow an upgrade for quite a while. By then I'll probably be looking at Broadwell-E or Skylake-E (but hey, bonus points if by then the "low end" -E processor is an Octocore. Going to need it by the time 4k video is somewhat more mainstream and/or H.265 is mainstream).

My server is a lowly Celeron G1610 w/ 8GB of DDR3L as all it needs to do is file serving, iTunes server, Calibre server and some other lightweight applications. That said, once upgrade time comes around, I think I might move to an i3-t processor to leverage a bit more power, but keep actual power consumption low. It is too bad Intel doesn't really make any dual core, hyperthreaded processors WITH turbocore in the desktop market. At some point the server is also likely to host a minecraft server and if/when it ever comes along, a KSP server too. I do want a backup server, but that'll likely be an Intel NUC with USB3 DAS box to be able to backup both storage AND services, instead of just the storage backup I have on a USB2 drive right now.

 

[htismaqe]

At some point the server is also likely to host a minecraft server

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[azazel1024]

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me about it. My almost 7 year old is F-ing obsessed with the game. Plays Minecraft PE on his tablet just about as often as we let him (when he isn't begging to play Star Craft 2 or Kerbal Space Program on the laptop). He wants Minecraft for the computer or Xbox so that he can play with his friends.

We are not ready to burn that bridge, so we've been fending him off. When the time does come, it'll either be single player only mode or else I'll setup a private minecraft server for him and his friends.

I am anxiously waiting (as in waiting with anxiety, not in the looking forward way) for the day that my almost 5 year old son becomes obsessed. My almost 3 year old daughter probably has a few years...but one can never be sure.

*sob* At least I vaguely like minecraft even if I never have the free time to play (so I just don't ever). But I think I hear about it for at LEAST 10 minutes a day from my oldest.

 

[htismaqe]

I have two daughters, 10 and 13. For a while, they played Minecraft several hours a day. They were doing not just one but two school projects in Minecraft, plus spending their 1 or 2 leisure hours a day playing the way they wanted to (the school projects were more structured, so it wasn't really "playing").

Thankfully, they seem to have outgrown it a little bit and started doing more productive things (in my view, at least ). My 13 year old did manage to learn a little Java while running and modding her own server so I guess it wasn't all for naught.

That stuff is just like crack though. Thankfully I'm not that into it. I'd rather play Assassin's Creed.

 

[Just Checking]

I can understand the attraction of some of these games. A couple years ago I bought my wife a android tablet. I was updating it and downloaded a game (Spartan Wars) which is an on-line strategy game where you build cities and have to defend against attackers. Since there were significant contingent blocks of players who were from the Philippines, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Japan, as well as from North America, it required 24/7 attention to be able to defend your city(s) and your alliance. My wife had to do intervention and I basically abandoned the game. When you have a very significant investment in time into something, it's hard to give it up.

I find that figuring out how to do the networking things I want to do takes up all of the free time (plus more) that I have.

Good Luck with your minecraft server.

 

[Motofixxer]

This is such a simple question that it's silly, but I haven't thought about this since we had coaxial cables with terminators...

I have a router in my hallway. I'm forced to use a (10m) cable now to a computer in the office, but the "problem" is that I have two computers in my office.

How do I hook both of them up to the network, using only a single cable to the router?

I can't see how a router in a hallway is very efficient or aesthetically pleasing I would begin by looking into ways to relocate the router to a better location. Without knowing the layout of the house or reasoning of the hallway location that's difficult to offer suggestions. Essentially start building a simplified small network and expand as necessary. Here is a simple diagram. http://compnetworking.about.com/od/...ork-Diagrams/Wi-Fi-Router-Network-Diagram.htm
Or you can just buy a small gigabit switch and a couple of patch cords and call it done.

This is a related question and I didn't want to start a new thread just for this.

I'm sure the OP appreciates you hijacking his question which has turned into a whole page of your obviously complex issues. That is EXACTLY why you should start your own question and thread. It's rude and inconsiderate as there are now 2 separate issues with 2 different posters going on in the same thread. It also gets complicated as a result.

Now as far as some of your issues, it seems you may need to think outside the box a little bit. Maybe consolidate your servers with VM's or physically relocate them. With the price/size of drives etc you could easily fit 20tb in one box, maybe use a second as a backup etc. If you have lack of port issues maybe relocate them to the basement right next to each other. Run them headless or remotely. Replace your main switch or place a more dedicated switch between them.

I don't know what type of access between servers you do etc but in the past some file managers had problems with large transfers. Possibly looking into Sync type programs may help ease issues.