Server 2003 network question

N

nst6563

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
4,023
Is it possible to install 2 nic's into a box running Server 2003 and either use network teaming or enable load balancing on them? I'm trying the NLB right now, but so far it either works but only uses one card (guess it's not really working then huh :p) or it doesn't work at all in the fact that no network traffic is recieved.

I know the sms servers we have use network teaming, but I didn't find that option available anywhere in server2k3.

thx
 
First thing first, you want to use NIC teaming or "etherchannel" as its called by some, and not NLB.

NLB is for load balancing multiple servers. For example, I think [H] uses multiple front end web servers which answer requests from one IP via some flavor of NLB setup. Why? simply put one server can't handle their massive load. (snicker) But by using multiple servers and NLB, the load is distribued to different servers, thereby lessening the work to be done by each server.

NIC teaming is a way of "shotgunning" 2 independant NICs on the same server. Basically taking 2 1Gb NICs and making them work together. There different configurations for different purposes.

Active - Active would be used to maximize available bandwidth. --- > 1Gb NIC + 1Gb NIC = 2Gb network connection.

Active - Passive = 1Gb connection with failover in case one NIC bites the dust.

Some questions to ask yourself are -

Do I have the proper equipment?

Both the NICs need to be identical, or at least use the same driver software. (A broadcom doesn't team well with an Intel)

Both the NICs and the switch must support the technology. In the world of switches, you may also hear this referred to as etherchannel, port sharing, or port teaming.

Do I really need more bandwidth? and Am i utilizing the full potential of my current hardware's bandwidth?

If you want this for a broadband connection or home use - STOP READING NOW - YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR LEAUGE AND IT WILL NOT HELP YOU

Now if you actually need the bandwidth, you may want to check to see if you can get by with using a gig connection with Jumbo frames. This will help you take much better advantage of your gigabit connection.
 
phreakpiercer said:
First thing first, you want to use NIC teaming or "etherchannel" as its called by some, and not NLB.

NLB is for load balancing multiple servers. For example, I think [H] uses multiple front end web servers which answer requests from one IP via some flavor of NLB setup. Why? simply put one server can't handle their massive load. (snicker) But by using multiple servers and NLB, the load is distribued to different servers, thereby lessening the work to be done by each server.

NIC teaming is a way of "shotgunning" 2 independant NICs on the same server. Basically taking 2 1Gb NICs and making them work together. There different configurations for different purposes.

Active - Active would be used to maximize available bandwidth. --- > 1Gb NIC + 1Gb NIC = 2Gb network connection.

Active - Passive = 1Gb connection with failover in case one NIC bites the dust.

Some questions to ask yourself are -

Do I have the proper equipment?

Both the NICs need to be identical, or at least use the same driver software. (A broadcom doesn't team well with an Intel)

Both the NICs and the switch must support the technology. In the world of switches, you may also hear this referred to as etherchannel, port sharing, or port teaming.

Do I really need more bandwidth? and Am i utilizing the full potential of my current hardware's bandwidth?

If you want this for a broadband connection or home use - STOP READING NOW - YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR LEAUGE AND IT WILL NOT HELP YOU

Now if you actually need the bandwidth, you may want to check to see if you can get by with using a gig connection with Jumbo frames. This will help you take much better advantage of your gigabit connection.
Click to expand...
It doesn't happen as often as it should, but there are times when you step back after reading a post and say..

Holy f*** that's a good answer.
 
lol...no, not for home use.

I'm using a server with RIS setup to dump a ghost image (or one made from riprep...I haven't decided which one to use yet...ghost is faster...so prolly that) to approx 146 machines.

I've got 1 server setup so far...it's a P4 3ghz w/HT and EM64T, 1gb ram, and 2x40gb sata in a raid stripe. I've got two identical NIC's installed in the two expansion PCI slots (I think they're Intel...but I'll double check). They're not Gb, but neither is the switch I have to work with. 1 GB nic built in (Broadcom) The switch is a 3Com superstack 3300.

I've JUST started this project and was noticing how slow the process was with more machines. As I dropped machines off, it sped up. I also noticed that my network utilization was pretty close to 100% (just used task manager and perfmon).

I'll check on the switch to see if it supports it. Not sure if the NIC's do though...they're regular desktop cards, not server cards.

If the NIC's DON'T support it...would there be a way to get more bandwidth from this one server with the 3 NIC's that's in there, or would it be better to set up another server or two and utilize NLB that way (I read up on NLB this afternoon before coming home and reading your post...nevertheless...good info to point out..Thanks!)

thx for the input!
 
I wouldn't set up another server to do NLB for RIS, it would cost too much. Try finding a switch that supports jumbo frames. You can find of those for much less than the cost of setting up a whole new server.

Try this dell

It should fit the bill
 
djnes said:
It doesn't happen as often as it should, but there are times when you step back after reading a post and say..

Holy f*** that's a good answer.
Click to expand...



:D Thanks
 
well, there is no cost for me to setup a new server. I'm simply using spare Dell GX520's for temporary servers. I'd get dirty looks if I asked for a Compaq MLxxx to run RIS for ghost multicast :p

I grabbed a spare Cisco 2950, and it seems to solve some of the problems my other switch had...but I don't know the admin login info...so I basically have to use it as-is since it's not my switch to keep :(
between the new switch, and I added two more 100tx NIC's to the Dell and bridged all three cards I was able to send out a ghost multicast to 24 machines at around 400mb/m...and they completed in under 8 min. Much improved from when I was using a single NIC with the 3Com 3300 switch...which would only get 400mb/m on a single ghostcast...if I did more than 2 it took about 60min.:eek:
 
nst6563 said:
well, there is no cost for me to setup a new server. I'm simply using spare Dell GX520's for temporary servers. I'd get dirty looks if I asked for a Compaq MLxxx to run RIS for ghost multicast :p

I grabbed a spare Cisco 2950, and it seems to solve some of the problems my other switch had...but I don't know the admin login info...so I basically have to use it as-is since it's not my switch to keep :(
between the new switch, and I added two more 100tx NIC's to the Dell and bridged all three cards I was able to send out a ghost multicast to 24 machines at around 400mb/m...and they completed in under 8 min. Much improved from when I was using a single NIC with the 3Com 3300 switch...which would only get 400mb/m on a single ghostcast...if I did more than 2 it took about 60min.:eek:
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, ive done a 42 computer multicast ghost session off of a 1.7ghz laptop and its taken about 5 minutes, pretty steady at 850-900Mb/m. Something isnt right. I would make sure you are using multicast for anything more then 1 computer.
 
I'll agree that something isn't right with it...but for now I have to work with what I have. I think it's an issue with the switch, but I'm having another one sent shortly so I may find out on the next batch of machines.

last time we did ghost multicast, we used a 2.0ghz machine w/ single nic and the clients booted from floppy...the image took about 5-7 minutes then. using a different switch.
 
My guess would be the switch then, like I said 40 computers off a laptop with no slowdown issues at all. This was on brand new Cisco switches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top