Mixing Unmanaged switches with load-balance or trunking

[Donchik]

Dear all,

I'm having some issues with a home office set-up. and wondered if anybody can guide me around the problem.

The attachment shows my current setup, and the system appears to work, albeit slowly.

All the PC's are 1Gbit NIC's except the laptop which is mobile. No wireless components in the system.

My issue is the Dual server NIC which is part of an Asus M2N-LR Mobo. I've configured it as both smart load balance, and generic trunking, but neither appear to keep both LAN ports working. When I test throughput, it appears that only one Lan port is active, and depending on how I attach the LAN, the sepeds to the PC's and HTPC are either 1000, or 100, never both 1000

I suspect a loop of some kind, but as the Dual Lan is not bridged, I thought this was not likley. In any case, I've hooked up a loop before in error, and know the way in which the switches go "Nuts!". This does not appear to be happening.

Can anybody help me get the two switches to recieve and transmit to the server at 1000 speeds instead of one or the other taking the long way round at 100 speeds.

Many thanks,
D.

 

[tipstir]

Dear all,

I'm having some issues with a home office set-up. and wondered if anybody can guide me around the problem.

The attachment shows my current setup, and the system appears to work, albeit slowly.

All the PC's are 1Gbit NIC's except the laptop which is mobile. No wireless components in the system.

My issue is the Dual server NIC which is part of an Asus M2N-LR Mobo. I've configured it as both smart load balance, and generic trunking, but neither appear to keep both LAN ports working. When I test throughput, it appears that only one Lan port is active, and depending on how I attach the LAN, the sepeds to the PC's and HTPC are either 1000, or 100, never both 1000

I suspect a loop of some kind, but as the Dual Lan is not bridged, I thought this was not likley. In any case, I've hooked up a loop before in error, and know the way in which the switches go "Nuts!". This does not appear to be happening.

Can anybody help me get the two switches to recieve and transmit to the server at 1000 speeds instead of one or the other taking the long way round at 100 speeds.

Many thanks,
D.

Taking a closer look your your network node design...

I see No Gig Router in this scheme you have? 100 mbps Router switch going into 1000mbps switch which should be isolated. Right there is the problem You need to get GIG Router and then port 1 | (100 mbps switch) to isolate all 100 mbps to and from that switch. Then on port 2 | (1000 mbps switch) to isolate all 1000 mbps to and from that switch. Note Doesn't matter which brand of switches are used they all pretty much route the number of nodes packets to and from each other.

WIRED/WIRELESS GIG ROUTER
PORT 1 (100MBPS)
PORT 2 (1000MBPS
PORT 3 (VOIP)
PORT 4 (WIRELESS ACCESS POINT)

 

[Donchik]

Hi Tipstir,

Thanks for the quick reply.

If the router is only being used to attach the cable modem to the system, and support the slower 100mbps traffic, why do I need a 1000mbps router?

The internet is more than supported at 100mbps.

Have I missed something is your post?

What I thought I'd have is the HTPC connected to the server at 1000mbps, and the internet side at up to 100mbps, then the other PC's hooked to eachother and the server at 1000mbps, and to the internet at 100mbps.

Can you help clarify the flaw in my reasoning.

Best regards,
D.

 

[tipstir]

Hi Tipstir,

Thanks for the quick reply.

If the router is only being used to attach the cable modem to the system, and support the slower 100mbps traffic, why do I need a 1000mbps router?
The internet is more than supported at 100mbps.
Have I missed something is your post?
What I thought I'd have is the HTPC connected to the server at 1000mbps, and the internet side at up to 100mbps, then the other PC's hooked to eachother and the server at 1000mbps, and to the internet at 100mbps.
Can you help clarify the flaw in my reasoning.

Best regards,
D.

Wide Area Network - WAN (Internet)
If you have downloading at 6mbps then 10mbps is more than you need
If you have downloading at 10, 15, 20mbps then 100mbps is more than you need.
As we get into 150mbps then the gig router for the WAN should be set to 1000mbps.
You could run on a static IP bases using 1000mbps switch to 1000mbps PCs, but if you want to pull in data from 100mbps source on your network then it would be better to
go the extra route and buy yourself a 10/100/1000mbps Router.

I myself here run HTPC Server which is now GIG base but the clients are 100mbps base. To get around all of this and keep the speeds running even on to the File/Web Server which is now GIG base. Downloader box is GIG and Video Productio Editor Studio / Programmer is also GIG base. I move large files between these 4 GIGs systems daily. I faster access to my JPEG images, AVI demo etc.. I do a lot remote control too. That's why my 2 GIG switches gets so HOT!

I just recommend you get a gig router and you still can keep your existing network structure but you would connect the 100mbps switch together to one of the ports on the routerand leave the 1000mbps connected via gig.
switch port

You'll still have your dual network speeds 100mbps for your 100mbps nodes (network devices or wireless access points)

You still have full speed access using your GIG boxes at 1000mbps nodes (network devices)

 

[jdabbs]

Thanks for taking the time to generate a diagram.

Your GigE switches are interconnected via a 100BaseT router. Regardless of whether link aggregation is working, I would remove one of the Router<>DGS-1008 switch links, add a switch<>switch link, and consolidate the server's ports to just one switch. As is, load balancing forces the transit path for one of the NICs to use a 100BaseT link (Switch<>Router<>Switch). For connections initiated by the client, the path used comes down to which port the client's switch has the server corresponding with in its MAC table. If aggregation is implemented by using the same MAC on both interfaces, then broadcasts from the server are going to come from both the server<>switch port and the switch<>router port. The switch isn't smart enough to make the optimal port choice, so a 100BaseT connection is possible.

Tipstir's recommendation to replace the router with a GigE model would also work, as there would no longer be any 100BaseT uplinks.

 

[Donchik]

Hi Guys (or gals ;-o)

Many thanks for the insights.

For the present I'm stuck with the Billion router (10/100), but I don't see that as an issue. It was not brought for its switch capabilities, just to link to the internet the plethora of machines/devices I appear to have collected over the years. My old D-Link DI824VUP died bigtime earlier this year, probably overloaded! (In fact I'm quite impressed with the BiGuard 2 so far)

I think I've understood your proposals, and have revamped my scheme as the attached diagram. As the "Maxime PC" is the slowest, and least used, it appears a good candidate to move to the second switch, along with the laser and (Intermittent) laptop. (Traffic on the switch2switch link should not cause to great a bottleneck)

I note your comments on the internet, and agree that even my streaming activities should not be to much for the single 10/100 link to the router. I think I hoped for to much that I could simultaneously link the HTPC to the server and the internet, whilst maintaining a seperate PC cluster to the server and internet. (Main driver was smooth streaming to the HTPC as I use an IPTV service from the FSU)

If possible, could you feedback on this latest proposal. My biggest fear is that by setting a generic trunk, or similar, to the DGS-1008T I may create a local loop to the server.

I understand that the BCM5721 can be configured in several ways (Smart Load Balancing and Fail Over, Link Aggregation (IEEE 802.3ad), Generic Trunking, and SLB [Auto-Fail back disable]) Do you know if any of these are viable with the D-link DGS-1008T? My gut feel is that "Link Aggregation (IEEE 802.3ad)" and "Generic Trunking" are the most likely to permit the full 2xGigabit potential, HDDs permitting ;-)

Best regards,
D.

 

[jdabbs]

I haven't tried, but I get the impression from documentation on Smart Load Balancing that the aggregation is handled via client software, independent of switch support. Sounds possible on a cheap switch.

 

[Donchik]

Thanks,

Found this while following your link:
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/network/P29352/English/teamsvcs.htm#smart_load_balancing

It looks exactly what I need, and I'll try it tonight.

Many thanks for the guidance, I'll report back how it goes.
D.

 

[scotty]

Load balancing and aggregation isn't inherently supported in Windows XP or Server 2003. It's always done via. software, usually from the NIC manufacturer. In theory, it shouldn't matter what switch is being used. If the software is indeed handling things properly, you should be able to plug in teamed NIC's into any ol' switch. I'm no expert on link ag. so correct me if I'm wrong, but in my experience the teaming software will only present 1 MAC and keep the other NIC in a disabled state (redundancy mode), or sending traffic out both links using load balancing mojo via. the software (load balancing/aggregation mode).

Depending on how the software handles things, if the NICs are in different switches, I dont think things will work as intended. I think you'd be best to keep the teaming to one switch. Having more than one path to the same machine on the same network is going to play havoc with the switches ARP tables, I would imagine.

But I'm no expert on the topic, and haven't had my morning coffee yet.

 

[tipstir]

Thanks,

Found this while following your link:
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/network/P29352/English/teamsvcs.htm#smart_load_balancing

It looks exactly what I need, and I'll try it tonight.

Many thanks for the guidance, I'll report back how it goes.
D.

Load balance results I didn't results on my two servers with two NICs but you okay with the second network plan but how are you notice the speed on 1000mbps end?

 

[Donchik]

Hi guys,

Just configured BASP and set up the SLB as defined.

System is working fine, although the server CPU load appears a bit high.

Both ports are busy and the switch appears to happily accept this configuration.

I tried some simple file transfers simultaneoulsy and the NIC useage climed to a respectable level.

Many thanks for all your guidance, it looks like the SLB is the solution.
D.