|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > June 2002 > NIC Teaming
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| group6 2002-06-24, 6:37 pm |
| Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel Fast
EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have to
add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
Thank very much!
--
remove killspam to reply
| |
| Route Man 2002-06-24, 6:37 pm |
| Chances are you are only getting a benefit from a redundancy standpoint.
The server will probably never push more than 30MB per second which the
single 100MB port can handle easily. The server will be the bottleneck.
Don
"group6" <group6@killspamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:0jdQ8.23818$%o.3255835721@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel Fast
> EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
> Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
> So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
> improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have to
> add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
> Thank very much!
>
> --
> remove killspam to reply
>
>
| |
| Hansang Bae 2002-06-24, 6:37 pm |
| In article <0jdQ8.23818$%o.3255835721@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>, group6
@killspamsnet.net says...
> Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel Fast
> EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
> Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
> So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
> improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have to
> add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
> Thank very much!
No to both. FEC works by XOR'ing the mac addresses or the IP addresses
(depending on the OS version). So if only two machines are involved in a
file transfer, only ONE link will be used at any given time.
But if you have more than two stations, the other stations may have a crack
at the unused pipe (no pun intended!)
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| group6 2002-06-24, 6:37 pm |
| So, let me get this right. If Comp A and Comp B, connected to the same
switch, both of which have teamed NICs, there WILL or WILL NOT be a greater
rate of transfer? Do you know if NT 4.0 SP6a supports teaming (Comp B)?
Oh BTW, does XOR mean 'either or'?
"Hansang Bae" <hbae_@_nyc.rr.com.REMOVE_> wrote in message
news:MPG.177b876ae1b522dc989b80@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <0jdQ8.23818$%o.3255835721@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>, group6
> @killspamsnet.net says...
> > Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel
Fast
> > EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
> > Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
> > So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
> > improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have
to
> > add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
> > Thank very much!
>
>
> No to both. FEC works by XOR'ing the mac addresses or the IP addresses
> (depending on the OS version). So if only two machines are involved in a
> file transfer, only ONE link will be used at any given time.
>
> But if you have more than two stations, the other stations may have a
crack
> at the unused pipe (no pun intended!)
>
>
> --
>
> hsb
>
> "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> ******************************
******************************
********
> Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Hansang Bae 2002-06-24, 6:37 pm |
| In article <0%mQ8.23893$ly4.3271486567@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>, group6
@killspamsnet.net says...
> So, let me get this right. If Comp A and Comp B, connected to the same
> switch, both of which have teamed NICs, there WILL or WILL NOT be a greater
> rate of transfer? Do you know if NT 4.0 SP6a supports teaming (Comp B)?
> Oh BTW, does XOR mean 'either or'?
WILL NOT. Intel/3Com has NIC drivers that support NT4SP6.
XOR is Binary Exclusive Or operation. So for two pipe teaming, you XOR the
last bit of the MAC address. For four-pipe teaming, you XOR the last two
bits of the MAC addresses.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Subordin8 2002-06-24, 6:38 pm |
|
> XOR is Binary Exclusive Or operation. So for two pipe teaming, you XOR the
> last bit of the MAC address. For four-pipe teaming, you XOR the last two
> bits of the MAC addresses.
Where can I get more information on this?
| |
| group6 2002-06-24, 6:38 pm |
| So, let me get this right. If Comp A and Comp B, connected to the same
switch, both of which have teamed NICs, there WILL or WILL NOT be a greater
rate of transfer? Do you know if NT 4.0 SP6a supports teaming (Comp B)?
Oh BTW, does XOR mean 'either or'?
"Hansang Bae" <hbae_@_nyc.rr.com.REMOVE_> wrote in message
news:MPG.177b876ae1b522dc989b80@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <0jdQ8.23818$%o.3255835721@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>, group6
> @killspamsnet.net says...
> > Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel
Fast
> > EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
> > Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
> > So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
> > improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have
to
> > add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
> > Thank very much!
>
>
> No to both. FEC works by XOR'ing the mac addresses or the IP addresses
> (depending on the OS version). So if only two machines are involved in a
> file transfer, only ONE link will be used at any given time.
>
> But if you have more than two stations, the other stations may have a
crack
> at the unused pipe (no pun intended!)
>
>
> --
>
> hsb
>
> "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> ******************************
******************************
********
> Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Hansang Bae 2002-06-24, 6:38 pm |
| In article <0%mQ8.23893$ly4.3271486567@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>, group6
@killspamsnet.net says...
> So, let me get this right. If Comp A and Comp B, connected to the same
> switch, both of which have teamed NICs, there WILL or WILL NOT be a greater
> rate of transfer? Do you know if NT 4.0 SP6a supports teaming (Comp B)?
> Oh BTW, does XOR mean 'either or'?
WILL NOT. Intel/3Com has NIC drivers that support NT4SP6.
XOR is Binary Exclusive Or operation. So for two pipe teaming, you XOR the
last bit of the MAC address. For four-pipe teaming, you XOR the last two
bits of the MAC addresses.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Hansang Bae 2002-06-24, 6:38 pm |
|
> > XOR is Binary Exclusive Or operation. So for two pipe teaming, you XOR the
> > last bit of the MAC address. For four-pipe teaming, you XOR the last two
> > bits of the MAC addresses.
In article <3D13406A.2010908@NOSPam.intekom.com>, pdawson@NOSPam.intekom.com
says...
> Where can I get more information on this?
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/4.html
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Subordin8 2002-06-24, 6:39 pm |
|
> XOR is Binary Exclusive Or operation. So for two pipe teaming, you XOR the
> last bit of the MAC address. For four-pipe teaming, you XOR the last two
> bits of the MAC addresses.
Where can I get more information on this?
| |
| Hansang Bae 2002-06-24, 6:39 pm |
|
> > XOR is Binary Exclusive Or operation. So for two pipe teaming, you XOR the
> > last bit of the MAC address. For four-pipe teaming, you XOR the last two
> > bits of the MAC addresses.
In article <3D13406A.2010908@NOSPam.intekom.com>, pdawson@NOSPam.intekom.com
says...
> Where can I get more information on this?
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/4.html
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Kurt Hutchison 2002-06-24, 6:40 pm |
| If you have a NIC that supports full duplex communication and your switch
support full duplex, then you will have 200 Mbps through put between the two
end points. If that is the seep you are looking for, then only one NIC per
computer is needed. Also, by using full duplex, there is no collision
domian between the two end nodes.
"group6" <group6@killspamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:0jdQ8.23818$%o.3255835721@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel Fast
> EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
> Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
> So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
> improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have to
> add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
> Thank very much!
>
> --
> remove killspam to reply
>
>
| |
| Kurt Hutchison 2002-06-24, 6:40 pm |
| If you have a NIC that supports full duplex communication and your switch
support full duplex, then you will have 200 Mbps through put between the two
end points. If that is the seep you are looking for, then only one NIC per
computer is needed. Also, by using full duplex, there is no collision
domian between the two end nodes.
"group6" <group6@killspamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:0jdQ8.23818$%o.3255835721@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel Fast
> EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
> Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
> So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
> improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have to
> add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
> Thank very much!
>
> --
> remove killspam to reply
>
>
| |
| group6 2002-06-24, 10:25 pm |
| The doumentation for the switch sts it supports full duplex
auto-negotiation. The NIC doc sts it supports up to 1.6 GHz at full duplex
using Fast EtherChannel (802.3ad). So, I guess Im in?
"Kurt Hutchison" <kc6kip@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d179b6a$1_1@news3.calweb.com...
> If you have a NIC that supports full duplex communication and your switch
> support full duplex, then you will have 200 Mbps through put between the
two
> end points. If that is the seep you are looking for, then only one NIC
per
> computer is needed. Also, by using full duplex, there is no collision
> domian between the two end nodes.
>
>
> "group6" <group6@killspamsnet.net> wrote in message
> news:0jdQ8.23818$%o.3255835721@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> > Computer A has 2 10/100 Intel NICs. Teamed them together using Intel
Fast
> > EtherChannel/Link Aggregation. They connect to a 24 port managed switch.
> > Computer B, connected to the same switch, has only 1 NIC.
> > So, is Computer A running at 200mb/sec to the switch? Is there any
> > improvment in communication between Comp A and Comp B, or would I have
to
> > add a NIC to Comp B and team them to see an improvement?
> > Thank very much!
> >
> > --
> > remove killspam to reply
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|