Direct connection - Yea or nay?

[AVB]

I recently picked up two IBM (Intel) 2port GB NICs for a song. My plan is to put one in my FreeNas box and one in my Backup and run a direct connection between the two using the other port for normal network/internet . The onboard motherboard NICs will be disabled. Good idea or does it sound better on paper than it works in practice?

 

[BigDave]

My plan is to put one in my FreeNas box and one in my Backup and run a direct connection between the two using the other port for normal network/internet .

The way I understand this is that the two interfaces can not be on the same subnet, properly configured,
it should work. All though I'm not sure what you would gain from doing this???

 

[DrKK]

All though I'm not sure what you would gain from doing this???

That's where I am with this as well. What does the user perceive he will gain by doing this?

 

[AVB]

I'm hoping that the backup and restore speeds will increase while still being able to access other things on the network. Right now let's say I want to backup something from my FreeNas box. From my backup box (Windows 10) it goes through the local switch into the wall eventually connecting to the main switch leaves that and then hits the local switch where my FreeNas box is and then to the FreeNas box itself. Direct connection eliminates all of that. A less is more kinda thing..

The way I understand this is that the two interfaces can not be on the same subnet, properly configured,
it should work. All though I'm not sure what you would gain from doing this???

That's where I am with this as well. What does the user perceive he will gain by doing this?

 

[DrKK]

I see. Well, unless your network is unusually busy, I don't think the hassle you will experience setting that up will be even remotely worth it.

Less is, indeed, more, sir.

 

[BigDave]

I think the many conditions that may or may not exist within your network would
make it very hard to predict the outcome of something like this, but since you've
purchased the cards, save your config files and experiment away. Let us know
what you find out.

 

[AVB]

No, I can't say the network is busy unless I am doing a backup or restore which is why I asked if it sounded better on paper than in practice. Thanks for your input.

 

[AVB]

Yeah, the house is already wired. I put in Cat5E drops in a few years ago so that would have been the biggest problem. Just a matter of putting the cards in and playing around now.

I think the many conditions that may or may not exist within your network would
make it very hard to predict the outcome of something like this, but since you've
purchased the cards, save your config files and experiment away. Let us know
what you find out.

 

[BigDave]

Yeah, the house is already wired. I put in Cat5E drops in a few years ago so that would have been the biggest problem. Just a matter of putting the cards in and playing around now.

Keep us updated, will you?
Don't forget to save a copy of your config files, just in case things get pooched ;)

 

[AVB]

I have to do some baseline tests, a 50GB file, 50GB of 2GB files and maybe 10GB worth of files under 500K...but it ain't gonna happen this weekend :)

 

[Mirfster]

IMHO I don't think you will see any significant gains from this.

Now if you were able to sing a few more songs and pickup two 10GB NICs and direct connect those, then your cooking with Crisco...

Of course you would:

• Make sure they are on a different sub-net
  
• Leave the motherboard NICs enabled (for standard traffic); unless they are RealTeks; then use the Intels.. :)

 

[AVB]

So are you saying or suggesting that I use BOTH ports for direct connection? I had said above I was going to use one for DC and the other for standard traffic.
I can't sing that well, I got these for $10 each - delivered. While I haven't priced 10GB NICs I think they are still out of my price range.

IMHO I don't think you will see any significant gains from this.

Now if you were able to sing a few more songs and pickup two 10GB NICs and direct connect those, then your cooking with Crisco...

Of course you would:

• Make sure they are on a different sub-net
  
• Leave the motherboard NICs enabled (for standard traffic); unless they are RealTeks; then use the Intels.. :)

 

[Mirfster]

So are you saying or suggesting that I use BOTH ports for direct connection?

Nah, not going to do you any good. I was just saying that if your motherboard had a RealTek NIC your are better off with the Intel NIC.

 

[AVB]

OK, because I know how to do teaming in the Windows world and I'm sure I can figure out how in FreeNAS eventually but as you said it shouldn't do any good with only one machine hooked to another. Maybe load balancing might fit in their somehow?

Nah, not going to do you any good. I was just saying that if your motherboard had a RealTek NIC your are better off with the Intel NIC.

 

[pirateghost]

OK, because I know how to do teaming in the Windows world and I'm sure I can figure out how in FreeNAS eventually but as you said it shouldn't do any good with only one machine hooked to another. Maybe load balancing might fit in their somehow?

Teaming in freenas doesn't work like teaming in windows. Aka. You can't do it that way.

LACP won't help you either, because you don't have enough clients for it to matter.

If you have both the backup box and the freenas connected to the same switch it doesn't have to go anywhere but to that switch.

 

[DrKK]

@AVB I hope it's very clear by now that you're on a fool's errand. Unless you were simply academically curious as to if you could successfully set it up (which is legitimate), I would recommend you abort mission.

 

[depasseg]

It sounds like on your primary and backup you plan to have 1 of the two ports directly connected to the other machine and the second port connected to your switch (for internet traffic). If that is correct, then yes, you might see some performance gains, but only if there is a decent amount of other network traffic coming from your primary or backup machine going to other machines on your network or the internet. If you go this route, you should manually assign IP addresses on the backup interfaces (something like 10.212.1.2-3/30) outside the scope of your local network. There are a couple post about creating a dedicated backup network. Good luck.

 

[AVB]

You got it. Just trying to squeeze all speed that I can when I do a backup or restore. 20+TB of data takes quite a while and it isn't going to go down. I know in the long run 10GB NICs are the best solution but sometimes you gotta work with what you have/can afford. Then there is the curiosity factor too as DrKK mentioned.

It sounds like on your primary and backup you plan to have 1 of the two ports directly connected to the other machine and the second port connected to your switch (for internet traffic). If that is correct, then yes, you might see some performance gains, but only if there is a decent amount of other network traffic coming from your primary or backup machine going to other machines on your network or the internet. If you go this route, you should manually assign IP addresses on the backup interfaces (something like 10.212.1.2-3/30) outside the scope of your local network. There are a couple post about creating a dedicated backup network. Good luck.

 

[depasseg]

The nice thing about direct connect (although it probably applies to home networks as well), is that you can disable the encryption cipher which really helps speed things up.

 

[AVB]

Now that is something I didn't know. I'll have to put that on my (growing) list of things to look into - Thanks!

The nice thing about direct connect (although it probably applies to home networks as well), is that you can disable the encryption cipher which really helps speed things up.