Link aggregation on Apple's Time Capsule 2010

[Oded]

Hi all,

I have an Apple Time Capsule (Airport Extreme with backup drive that I never use :)), specifically this model:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001UE8LU6/?tag=ozlp-20

Some information online claimed that this model supports link aggregation while I couldn't find it in any official documentation. Is there any way to verify this?

This is one of the most confusing aspects of FreeNAS to me. I read the documentation but it's still a bit unclear to me how this really works. I should connect both ethernet cables from my NAS to my router, configure the option in FreeNAS, and automagically I'll have 2gb access to the NAS? No need to configure anything on the router? How do I test if it works correctly?

What if I have a switch connected to the third port, does that change anything? Can a simple unmanaged switch also achieve the link aggregation? Specifically i have this one:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001QUA6R0/?tag=ozlp-20

Sorry for the total-noob questions, this is one aspect of home NAS that I never got around to until I had a dual-ethernet motherboard (the ASRock C2750).

 

[cyberjock]

As a home user, LACP/LAGG will not give you magically 2Gb/sec speeds. You'll still be limited to 1Gb/sec for your clients. Unless you have >10 clients AND expect to saturate 1Gb links regularly you should not attempt LACP/LAGG. Not only does LACP/LAGG require you to know what you are doing, if you set it up wrong it can create a whole new set of networking problems.

LACP/LAGG is filled with misconceptions about free performance. It can work great when you have tons of clients as you would find in a business. But for a limited number of users it will be worthless.

Also, I can't vouch for either of those, but LACP/LAGG has always required me to go into a network switch and set it up manually. So I'm inclined to argue that the people making the claims that it "just works" are probably clueless. But don't quote me on it.

 

[Oded]

Thanks, I think that's all I needed to know :) So I'll just use one and keep the other one for its good looks :).

 

[cyberjock]

Thanks, I think that's all I needed to know :) So I'll just use one and keep the other one for its good looks :).

That's what I do. ;)

 

[Oded]

While we're on the topic - is there any way to choose one port over the other? Are they both the same chipset? I notice one of them is marked with a "Management" icon, but I have my cable connected to the second port and I can still access the motherboard's IPMI console.

 

[cyberjock]

Choose one port?

The IPMI is its own dedicated NIC and you should definitely plug that one in. It will be for IPMI and nothing else.

The other ports you just use whatever one you want and call it good. Just don't plug in both NICs and put them on different IPs on the same subnet and expect good results. If all that gobbely-gook means nothing to you just use one NIC for your network sharing and the IPMI and call it good.

 

[Oded]

OMG, you're right, there are THREE NICs on this motherboard! I should really stop plugging stuck in in the dark! :).

Thanks for the tip, will do.

 

[Oded]

Ok last question :D.

If I want to have the fastest possible link from my computer (Macbook Pro) to the NAS, would I be better to hook up a direct Ethernet cable from computer to NAS on the second port (bypassing the router)? I use the NAS as a storage device for iPhoto library, Aperture library, final cut pro sparsebundle images etc., it would be useful to have the fastest connection with the least latency to the NAS, as if I was working with an directly connected drive.

 

[cyberjock]

Honestly, if you are already connected via Gb wire that's the best you're going to get. If your network switch is adding more than a microsecond of latency you have serious problems and you'd hate using your network at all.

You will never get the same kind of performance as a directly connected drive. In particular, small file access goes to the pooper with regards to NASes. That's just how it works and is expected.