Compatible Support Forums: JJ32 gave me an intriuging idea...

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

JJ32 gave me an intriuging idea...

#1 User is offline   HELLBRINGER 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 27-June 01

Posted 04 July 2001 - 11:35 AM

From his recent thread start. I had an intriuging idea.

I don't know if it will work or even can. But... Could you take 2 switches, and two network cards. And 2 NICs in each comp on the network. And run both as a multi-link type of thing? Combining the speed of two switches together and the speed of two NICs together. Would this work or can even be done? I know its far off base for the switches.

You can do this with modems I kow. Can it be done with NICs? How about switches/hubs?

Hehe sorry I though it was a good idea...
0

#2 User is offline   Cynan 

  • enthusiast
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 15-November 00

Posted 04 July 2001 - 12:22 PM

Yes... I'd say so. There is software out there that lets you combine connections together. A friend uses such a thing on her ISDN and modem connections.
0

#3 User is offline   clutch 

  • Carpal Tunnel
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3859
  • Joined: 29-March 00

Posted 04 July 2001 - 06:44 PM

Well, using multiple NICs in that arrangement would be "Load Balancing". As for the 2 switches part, why use 2 switches? If there are 2 PCs using load balancing, and they wanted to connect to each other, just use a switch that has at least 4 ports plus whatever other ports you need for the rest of you network (such as "uplink" to another segment or device). However, I don't know if this is available for Win2K Pro since it's the workstation version of the OS.

With ISDN, it's called "Channel Bonding" and is a built-in function of the protocol. "Multi-link" or the trade name "Shotgun" protocols were to act in a similar fashion with POTS modems and would theoretically double the available bandwidth.
0

#4 User is offline   HELLBRINGER 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 27-June 01

Posted 04 July 2001 - 08:00 PM

Yeah I kinda saw a lot of this with modems.

The reason for 2 switches I guess is more throughput. But I would need 4 switches then... Cause I got 5 computers on the network and a 5 port switch.

Hmmm... Interesting. I think I will give the 2 NICs a try... Or... I got 2 extra 10MBPS cards... Hmmmm. ;-)

Thanks guys.
0

#5 User is offline   clutch 

  • Carpal Tunnel
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3859
  • Joined: 29-March 00

Posted 04 July 2001 - 10:26 PM

The switches would maintain 100Mbs per port anyway, so that wouldn't make any difference. Plus, NICs rarely hold their rated bandwidth anyway. That's mostly due to the OS though.
0

#6 User is offline   HELLBRINGER 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 27-June 01

Posted 04 July 2001 - 10:50 PM

Yes i know the ports would remain 100MBPS. But with 2 NICs, and 2 cables from 1 computer using 2 ports on a switch. Or.... 2 NICs and 2 cables in 1 PC and 1 cable going to one switch and the other to the other switch and the two switches connnected together combining their speed.

Kind of like full duplex but full duplex seems wierd and doesnt feel like 200MBPS, actually it seems slower sometimes. How does that work anyway?
0

#7 User is offline   Uykucu 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 28-February 01

Posted 05 July 2001 - 04:04 AM

Nope would not work with SW alone.
You need something link Compaq NIC Teaming or the equivalent from HP.
Because cards have to be able to communicate wih each other via DMA smile
It is basicly the same technology that they used on w95 for multi modem link.

If anybody needs more BW change your cables, routers or get Fiber smile
Real 1GB/ps should be enough for any of you smile
0

#8 User is offline   HELLBRINGER 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 27-June 01

Posted 05 July 2001 - 10:33 AM

Damn... But some of it could be done.
0

#9 User is offline   Uykucu 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 28-February 01

Posted 05 July 2001 - 11:35 AM

All of it can be done,
Get the necessary Nic's
or a Compaq server. Once you are at it why don't you cluster as well :))
0

#10 User is offline   Cynan 

  • enthusiast
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 15-November 00

Posted 05 July 2001 - 06:39 PM

The S/W is there, trust me, its called multipoint or something, I'll post the link in here later. It can be run on 2K Pro to balancing the load across two or more interfaces.
0

#11 User is offline   HELLBRINGER 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 27-June 01

Posted 06 July 2001 - 12:24 AM

Ok cool well I was just wondering. If it is a decent price I will probably do it.

Thanks
0

#12 User is offline   Cynan 

  • enthusiast
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 15-November 00

Posted 06 July 2001 - 12:29 AM

http://www.midpoint.com/
0

#13 User is offline   Uykucu 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 28-February 01

Posted 06 July 2001 - 12:44 AM

Himm yes SW claims to be here but how does it work? has anyone tryed it? and how does it manage which packet comes from which NIC. driver has to support this and even the card. so we are back to Sq one in my opinion.
It might be good for traffic control and such but can it combine BW's or Separate them to channels in that sense???
0

#14 User is offline   Cynan 

  • enthusiast
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 15-November 00

Posted 06 July 2001 - 12:51 AM

My friend uses it, it balances the load across them.
0

#15 User is offline   Uykucu 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 28-February 01

Posted 06 July 2001 - 01:03 AM

Yes of course any SW can do that but I believe Hellbringer's idea was to combine the BW of 2 Nic's and get a cheaper 400 Mbit or whatever.
I will have a look at it this weekend.
0

#16 User is offline   Cynan 

  • enthusiast
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 15-November 00

Posted 06 July 2001 - 01:10 AM

You can't do that with hardware - I don't think. The way you work around it is to use threads when transfering the data, like when bounding DSL connections.
0

#17 User is offline   HELLBRINGER 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 27-June 01

Posted 06 July 2001 - 06:58 AM

Well I think there is special software to take the packets and split them into 2 smaller packets and 1 goes to 1 nic and one goes to another.

I know this can be done. But I wanna see if two switches can be used as 1 with twice the throughput.

Like RAID 0. Data stripping takes the data and it is split and part goes to on HD and the other goes to another HD.

Kind of like that?
0

#18 User is offline   Uykucu 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 28-February 01

Posted 06 July 2001 - 10:09 AM

Well,
This is what I mean. What you are asking can not be done without the appropriate NIC's
0

#19 User is offline   HELLBRINGER 

  • addict
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: 27-June 01

Posted 06 July 2001 - 12:03 PM

Yeah I figured that... But it's just an idea, dont need to take it to an extreme conversation.

I bet though if you put a little money, and time into it it could be done. And I think it would be quite impressive. Don't you?
0

#20 User is offline   clutch 

  • Carpal Tunnel
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3859
  • Joined: 29-March 00

Posted 06 July 2001 - 04:11 PM

Well, load-balancing works fine in servers, and is an installable option on Win2K Advanced/Enterprise Server and Windows 2000 Server if Application Server is installed. However, the general idea is "why bother?" when this is applied to workstations. Also, some applications may not take kindly to NLB, so this may still not be such a hot idea. Basically, go Giga-bit. smile
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users