Hey guys,
so great to have a forum where I can ask technical questions to lot so eyes. So I'm a SAN administrator, and we get the best performance when we manually load balance each of our ports on different networks.
For example I have a server with 4 ports of 10GigE going into a switch. We used to use LACP but it doesn't increase the bandwidth at all, and only provides redundancy, so it sucks. Plus it seems to hang up our server sometimes, and other times it crashes the NIC teaming and brings down the network. I think it does this because we are an ultra fast SSD Media server streaming content to lots of users simelataneously.
So the best option I think is to manually load balance, but our SAN software requires each port be on it's own subnet. I think because if all 4 ports are on the same network SMB 3.0 and 3.1 direct responds out of all 3 ports into the switch which screws up our bandwidth.
Is it possible to connect 4x ports into a switch, each port on it's own network, and then manually assign 40 or so client workstations an ip address 10 per each network.
For example:
I would hook up the switch to the four ports on the back of the server. I'd assign each port an IP addres something like:
192.168.10.100/24
192.168.20.100/24
192.168.30.100/24
192.168.40.100/24
Then for the first ten workstations I would give them a 192.168.10.xx ip address, then the next ten I would give them a 192.168.20.xx IP address, etc.
After all clients have been manually configured I know it will be possible for them to access and see the port of their specific network without a VLAN. So all four networks will be on one switch. Each communication with the other successfully, so why do I have to VLAN them into physical or logical ports on the switch?
Is it because of troubleshooting? And network segmentation? But wouldn't the logical network segment the broadcast out, or would they all be jumbled up? Do I really have to create four VLANs if I want to manually load balance my server in my production network?
Best,
Mythg
so great to have a forum where I can ask technical questions to lot so eyes. So I'm a SAN administrator, and we get the best performance when we manually load balance each of our ports on different networks.
For example I have a server with 4 ports of 10GigE going into a switch. We used to use LACP but it doesn't increase the bandwidth at all, and only provides redundancy, so it sucks. Plus it seems to hang up our server sometimes, and other times it crashes the NIC teaming and brings down the network. I think it does this because we are an ultra fast SSD Media server streaming content to lots of users simelataneously.
So the best option I think is to manually load balance, but our SAN software requires each port be on it's own subnet. I think because if all 4 ports are on the same network SMB 3.0 and 3.1 direct responds out of all 3 ports into the switch which screws up our bandwidth.
Is it possible to connect 4x ports into a switch, each port on it's own network, and then manually assign 40 or so client workstations an ip address 10 per each network.
For example:
I would hook up the switch to the four ports on the back of the server. I'd assign each port an IP addres something like:
192.168.10.100/24
192.168.20.100/24
192.168.30.100/24
192.168.40.100/24
Then for the first ten workstations I would give them a 192.168.10.xx ip address, then the next ten I would give them a 192.168.20.xx IP address, etc.
After all clients have been manually configured I know it will be possible for them to access and see the port of their specific network without a VLAN. So all four networks will be on one switch. Each communication with the other successfully, so why do I have to VLAN them into physical or logical ports on the switch?
Is it because of troubleshooting? And network segmentation? But wouldn't the logical network segment the broadcast out, or would they all be jumbled up? Do I really have to create four VLANs if I want to manually load balance my server in my production network?
Best,
Mythg