Re: Net port bonding

[Phil Brutsche]

Strictly speaking you don't need server or multi-port NICs.

The Intel utility that maintains the 802.3ad link aggregation does not
care how many ports the card has or whether they are server NICs.

A pair of 1-port Intel 1000baseT desktop cards will be fine.

Ben Scott wrote:
>   If I needed link aggregation, I'd install Intel server NICs in the
> computers.  They work well with our HP ProCurve switches.  Intel has
> some NICs with 2 and 4 ports on them; link aggregation is one of the
> applications.

-- 

Phil Brutsche
p...@optimumdata.com

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Net port bonding

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Kim Longenbaugh
 wrote:
> You mentioned fiber, but that won't improve the speed, since a gig over
> fiber is the same as a gig over copper, except for the distances
> involved.

  From what I've read, ten gig Ethernet is still predominantly a fiber
technology.  10GBASE-T (10 gig over twisted pair at 100 meter lengths)
is not working as well as the fiber stuff (yet).  Higher latency.  (I
could be wrong or behind the times, I've never touched the stuff
myself.)

  If I needed link aggregation, I'd install Intel server NICs in the
computers.  They work well with our HP ProCurve switches.  Intel has
some NICs with 2 and 4 ports on them; link aggregation is one of the
applications.

  One thing to be wary of: The speeds under discussion are starting to
approach the limits of other I/O subsystems, like disk and system bus.
 A single disk is going to be hard pressed to keep up with even a
single gigabit channel.  Most PCI bus configurations can't handle a
single gigabit channel without saturating the bus.  (And up to four
slots can share one bus.)  PCI-Express is better, in theory, but I
imagine the bandwidth of the controller hub and RAM matter, too.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Net port bonding

[RM]

One quick note to add here...

There are several different kinds of adapter teaming.  The simplest kind
involves no switch configuration but is also the least effective.  It
takes advantage of ARP spoofing to load-balance on a per-session or a
per-connection basis.  For one client talking to one server, it would
not help matters at all.  It comes in handy when there are multi-point
connections, so on the server side you could see some gains if there are
multiple users beating up the server at the same time.

A true bonding setup will load balance packet-by-packet and can improve
throughput in all scenarios.

RM
  
  
 
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:27 +0100, "Oliver Marshall"
 wrote:
> Hi chaps,
> 
> We have a client whose workers do mainly cad based rendering and shovel
> massive files around the network (TB files aren't uncommon). Certain
> workers need more network throughput than their aging gigabit network can
> offer them.
> 
> The options appear to be fibre, though for workstations, and just a
> handful, this seems to involved a large setup cost and may be overkill,
> and also bonding of ports. I like the last idea as it would allow certain
> workstations to bond multiple GB network ports together to get more
> throughput. 
> 
> Has anyone else done anything similar to this on the workstation end? Any
> words of wisdom ?


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Net port bonding

[gsweers]

Ah good call.  Thanks.  

-Original Message-
From: Phil Brutsche [mailto:p...@optimumdata.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:55 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Net port bonding

I'll second the HP recommendation.

BTW be careful when referring to link aggregation as "trunking" - that
is a HP-specific use of the word: in Cisco-land "trunking" refers to
tagged VLANs.

gswe...@actsconsulting.net wrote:
> Go with HP switches.  Its called trunking or Link aggregation when you
> bind multiple ports together.  

-- 

Phil Brutsche
p...@optimumdata.com

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Re: Net port bonding

[Phil Brutsche]

I'll second the HP recommendation.

BTW be careful when referring to link aggregation as "trunking" - that
is a HP-specific use of the word: in Cisco-land "trunking" refers to
tagged VLANs.

gswe...@actsconsulting.net wrote:
> Go with HP switches.  Its called trunking or Link aggregation when you
> bind multiple ports together.  

-- 

Phil Brutsche
p...@optimumdata.com

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Net port bonding

[Phil Brutsche]

Be careful there, EtherChannel is both a generic term for link bonding
as well as Cisco's term for their proprietary link bonding protocol,
also known as PaGP.

The true and correct name for 802.3ad link bonding is LACP - Link
Aggregation and Control Protocol. Any switch manufacturer that supports
IEEE standard link bonding will state either 802.3ad or LACP - or both -
on their data sheets.

Damien Solodow wrote:
> The standard for switch port bonding is 802.3ad. Cisco calls it
> etherchannel, so if you look for that you're good.

-- 

Phil Brutsche
p...@optimumdata.com

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Net port bonding

[gsweers]

Go with HP switches.  Its called trunking or Link aggregation when you
bind multiple ports together.  
If your NICS have mgmt software to do the binding and or trunking, get a
good HP managed switch that will meet your throughput needs.  HP
Presales is really good in this area.  You want your switch fabric to be
able to handle the high concurrent throughput you are going to be
pushing otherwise its like plugging 5 firehoses to a single fire hydrant
and getting no pressure on any of lines.  Your "hydrant" switch has to
be able to handle all those hoses..

Plus HP has really good tech support and lifetime warranty on most of
their lines.

Greg

-Original Message-
From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Net port bonding

H.

Do you know if there is a 'standard' as such for the teaming on the
switch so that we can be sure to get new switches that will work nicely
with the new nics in the workstations ?

I guess an obvious (you'd think) solution would be to get nics and
switches from the same manufacturer, but I guess that means nothing in
the world of outsourcing.

Olly

--
G2 Support
Network Support : Online Backups : Server Management

www.g2support.com


-Original Message-
From: Damien Solodow [mailto:damien.solo...@ibcschools.edu] 
Sent: 17 April 2009 15:31
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Net port bonding

Aside from the obvious that the workstation will need multiple NICs and
switch ports, make sure the NICs have a teaming capable driver/software.
You usually won't see this except on server nics though.

In general, teaming will allow bonding on outbound traffic without
needing anything to happen on the switch. If you want inbound traffic
bonding, you'll need to set that up on the switch as well.

-Original Message-
From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:27 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Net port bonding

Hi chaps,

We have a client whose workers do mainly cad based rendering and shovel
massive files around the network (TB files aren't uncommon). Certain
workers need more network throughput than their aging gigabit network
can offer them.

The options appear to be fibre, though for workstations, and just a
handful, this seems to involved a large setup cost and may be overkill,
and also bonding of ports. I like the last idea as it would allow
certain workstations to bond multiple GB network ports together to get
more throughput. 

Has anyone else done anything similar to this on the workstation end?
Any words of wisdom ?

Olly


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Net port bonding

[Kim Longenbaugh]

As others have said, the teaming part is pretty well supported on the
server and switch end.

You mentioned fiber, but that won't improve the speed, since a gig over
fiber is the same as a gig over copper, except for the distances
involved.

-Original Message-
From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:27 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Net port bonding


Hi chaps,

We have a client whose workers do mainly cad based rendering and shovel
massive files around the network (TB files aren't uncommon). Certain
workers need more network throughput than their aging gigabit network
can offer them.

The options appear to be fibre, though for workstations, and just a
handful, this seems to involved a large setup cost and may be overkill,
and also bonding of ports. I like the last idea as it would allow
certain workstations to bond multiple GB network ports together to get
more throughput. 

Has anyone else done anything similar to this on the workstation end?
Any words of wisdom ?

Olly


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Net port bonding

[Damien Solodow]

The standard for switch port bonding is 802.3ad. Cisco calls it
etherchannel, so if you look for that you're good.
I doubt you'll have any switch/nic issues. The nic teaming software
creates a virtual NIC that uses both physical ones. The setup on the
switch just says to create a virtual switchport that uses the two
physical ones.

Intel and Broadcom both have teaming capabilities for their server nics,
not sure about software for the workstation ones. Good luck finding a
decent nic that isn't one of those brands anymore. ;)

-Original Message-
From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Net port bonding

H.

Do you know if there is a 'standard' as such for the teaming on the
switch so that we can be sure to get new switches that will work nicely
with the new nics in the workstations ?

I guess an obvious (you'd think) solution would be to get nics and
switches from the same manufacturer, but I guess that means nothing in
the world of outsourcing.

Olly

--
G2 Support
Network Support : Online Backups : Server Management

www.g2support.com


-Original Message-
From: Damien Solodow [mailto:damien.solo...@ibcschools.edu] 
Sent: 17 April 2009 15:31
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Net port bonding

Aside from the obvious that the workstation will need multiple NICs and
switch ports, make sure the NICs have a teaming capable driver/software.
You usually won't see this except on server nics though.

In general, teaming will allow bonding on outbound traffic without
needing anything to happen on the switch. If you want inbound traffic
bonding, you'll need to set that up on the switch as well.

-Original Message-
From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:27 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Net port bonding

Hi chaps,

We have a client whose workers do mainly cad based rendering and shovel
massive files around the network (TB files aren't uncommon). Certain
workers need more network throughput than their aging gigabit network
can offer them.

The options appear to be fibre, though for workstations, and just a
handful, this seems to involved a large setup cost and may be overkill,
and also bonding of ports. I like the last idea as it would allow
certain workstations to bond multiple GB network ports together to get
more throughput. 

Has anyone else done anything similar to this on the workstation end?
Any words of wisdom ?

Olly


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Net port bonding

[Oliver Marshall]

H.

Do you know if there is a 'standard' as such for the teaming on the switch so 
that we can be sure to get new switches that will work nicely with the new nics 
in the workstations ?

I guess an obvious (you'd think) solution would be to get nics and switches 
from the same manufacturer, but I guess that means nothing in the world of 
outsourcing.

Olly

--
G2 Support
Network Support : Online Backups : Server Management

www.g2support.com


-Original Message-
From: Damien Solodow [mailto:damien.solo...@ibcschools.edu] 
Sent: 17 April 2009 15:31
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Net port bonding

Aside from the obvious that the workstation will need multiple NICs and
switch ports, make sure the NICs have a teaming capable driver/software.
You usually won't see this except on server nics though.

In general, teaming will allow bonding on outbound traffic without
needing anything to happen on the switch. If you want inbound traffic
bonding, you'll need to set that up on the switch as well.

-Original Message-
From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:27 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Net port bonding

Hi chaps,

We have a client whose workers do mainly cad based rendering and shovel
massive files around the network (TB files aren't uncommon). Certain
workers need more network throughput than their aging gigabit network
can offer them.

The options appear to be fibre, though for workstations, and just a
handful, this seems to involved a large setup cost and may be overkill,
and also bonding of ports. I like the last idea as it would allow
certain workstations to bond multiple GB network ports together to get
more throughput. 

Has anyone else done anything similar to this on the workstation end?
Any words of wisdom ?

Olly


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

RE: Net port bonding

[Damien Solodow]

Aside from the obvious that the workstation will need multiple NICs and
switch ports, make sure the NICs have a teaming capable driver/software.
You usually won't see this except on server nics though.

In general, teaming will allow bonding on outbound traffic without
needing anything to happen on the switch. If you want inbound traffic
bonding, you'll need to set that up on the switch as well.

-Original Message-
From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:27 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Net port bonding

Hi chaps,

We have a client whose workers do mainly cad based rendering and shovel
massive files around the network (TB files aren't uncommon). Certain
workers need more network throughput than their aging gigabit network
can offer them.

The options appear to be fibre, though for workstations, and just a
handful, this seems to involved a large setup cost and may be overkill,
and also bonding of ports. I like the last idea as it would allow
certain workstations to bond multiple GB network ports together to get
more throughput. 

Has anyone else done anything similar to this on the workstation end?
Any words of wisdom ?

Olly


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~