People use a 2nd GigE interface with unRAID? Any meaningful way for using it besides of teaming to create one trunk to the switch?

No not normally.  If you wanted to do link aggregation both unRAID and your switch handling the server would need to support the IEEE 802.3ad standard. (last I checked unRAID does not) Plus, unless you're planning on having a significant number of clients streaming off the server, you'll run into other hardware bottlenecks (most likely with your storage sub systems) before the single GigE becomes a significant issue.

 

Thanks, but having my storage controller cards on 133Mhz PCI-X and PCIe 8x and each disk doing 120MB/s I doubt that the disk subsystem is the limiting factor, at least with my setup?! Or is there anythign on the software/unRAID side limiting transfer speed?

 

Anyone knows about any plans for unRAID to support the 802.3ad? My switches already do.

Thanks, but having my storage controller cards on 133Mhz PCI-X and PCIe 8x and each disk doing 120MB/s I doubt that the disk subsystem is the limiting factor, at least with my setup?!

 

Anyone knows about any plans for unRAID to support the 802.3ad? My switches already do.

When writing to the disks, the rotational speed of the disks sets the limit at which you can write to the disks, regardless of how fast your CPU/bus/network might be.

 

Reading from disks is an entirely different matter as long as you are not reading from a reconstructed drive. (one that is being simulated by reading all the remaining drives in the array)

 

See here for more detail on why: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=4390.msg40666#msg40666

and here: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=4390.msg40684#msg40684

and here: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=256.msg1825#msg1825

 

Joe L.

However it does sound like an interesting project for some user:

 

* Research 802.3ad support

** What does Linux support now

** What module(s) are needed

** How are they packaged, installed, and configured

 

* Create a script to automatically support 802.3ad

** Detect the available support and installed module(s)

** Detect the existence of 2 active network lines

** Detect whether both have drivers that have the appropriate support

** Detect if the device at the other end of both lines also supports 802.3ad

** Attempt to initiate a linked connection

 

Many users might not be interested in this, but I suspect there are more than a few that would be happy to take advantage of it, even if the advantage was small.

Here is an interesting point I just read

 

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/hssg/public/apr07/frazier_01_0407.pdf

 

All packets within a given "conversation" are transmitted on the same link to prevent mis-ordering.

 

Hmm, if Windows and Samba only use one connection, would there be any benefit on one workstation?

Disappointing.  Does not look useful for unRAID users, probably not worth anyone's efforts.  It looks like copies to and from would still use only one connection.  Perhaps if you applied it to the leg between the switch and server, then multiple computers might take advantage of it, during simultaneous transfers.

 

What design I can infer looks less than optimal for many applications, looks like it was designed strictly for simultaneous independent sessions.  I would have thought they would use a simple idea, a sequence number on each packet, in a round-robin approach, that immediately increases the bandwidth linearly with each 'pipe' added.  If 2 lines connected, odd packets go on one line, evens on the other.  Simple.  Instant doubling of bandwidth.  If N lines, then each packet goes on the line assigned to 'sequence number mod N'.  There must be some reason why that would not work.  I suppose there is no incrementing sequence number already in the standard Ethernet packet they can use (I can't remember), and they probably do not want to modify the packet or create an encapsulating packet.

In an office situation with a centralized server I could see this helping a great deal.

With unRAID in a home use situation for media, I don't see it being worthwhile unless you had many workstations and media players.

I have six media players in four different rooms...but to be honest two or three max are ever used concurrently, normally only one and Ive never had any performance issues that warranted more than Gb support when playing back.

 

During my testing I got 5 devices streaming concurrently without issue.

 

 

I have six media players in four different rooms...but to be honest two or three max are ever used concurrently, normally only one and Ive never had any performance issues that warranted more than Gb support when playing back.

 

During my testing I got 5 devices streaming concurrently without issue.

 

 

I've done the same type of test...with 4 concurrent clients... the Gb network is plenty capable... ( it is very rare in my house to have more than two streaming devices playing movies...)

802.3ad could be indeed very useful if clients are streaming and you copy files TO the server. You instantly have here multiple separate connections. Also, when copying to the server, copies may originate from different computers, so again, different connections. I agree, this is probably not for the highest priority wishlist. Also not many home users have 802.3ad capable switches. However a lot are usung the X7SBE mainboard and Intel NICs that are 802.3ad capable, so at least the server side would be covered.

 

An 802.3ad capable, managed 24-port GigE switch like the HP ProCurve 1800-24G is about $200-$300 on ebay, so even this hardware isn't that much expensive and affordable to home users.

 

Then, all the Synologies, Qnaps, etc have the ability to connect a second interface.

 

Another option would be to have a 2nd IP address on the 2nd NIC and export disk shares only, leaving the user shares on the main interface. Imagine, in the Shares Tab being able to (optionally) specify a 2nd NIC for the exports. This would be really easy to implement and would not require any 802.3ad capable hardware and drivers. By doing so, one could use the 2nd interface for transfers/maintenance and all clients use the main NIC for streaming... Thid would be great benefit to everyone!

 

 

 

bumping this tread.

 

bonding ethernet adapters doesnt work in unRAID does it?

 

Im at the limits of gigabit.

 

unRAID has ifconfig, does it assign each detected network card eth0/1/2 etc? if so, shouldnt we be able to set a master bond of some sort?

 

im talking alb/load balancing here, not lacp.

802.3ad, as stated earlier, is really only useful if you have multiple clients reading a crapload of data.

so it works then?

 

as i said, im at the limits of gigabit.

You will need trunking which is (still) not possible with unRAID.

ill try to find another intel PT and shove that in see how i goes.

dont need trunking, just load balancing which has been built into linux kernel for a while via ifconfig.

as far as I can see (modprobe --list) there is no bonding support in the kernel that unRaid uses..

ahhh doh, maybe soething to add with 5.0?

 

i mean, lots of boards nowdays have multiple network ports, and we could use some extra speed

ahhh doh, maybe soething to add with 5.0?

 

i mean, lots of boards nowdays have multiple network ports, and we could use some extra speed

Tom has already said what will be in 5.0.  It is a re-work of the user-interface and a re-work of the file-permissions.  Both were expected (by him) to possibly be available as an early Christmas (2009) present.  Both are very overdue based on his initial estimate.

Here is one example of making something useful of your second NIC:

 

Suppose your HTPC frontends don't need internet access, and all they need is to stream media from the server.

Set them up on a separare subnet, hooked up to the second NIC.  You'll need a line in your 'go' script something like this:

ifconfig eth1 10.22.33.233 netmask 255.255.255.0 up

Your desktop computer and your wife/kids' computers will use the first subnet.

UnRAID will share its disks to both networks equally well without the need of any tweaks.

This way your ripping DVDs and copying stuff to/from the server will not fight for bandwidth with your HTPCs playing movies.

I use a similar setup to share one unRAID server with my neighbor while we are both on separate networks.

 

Purko, to define another subnet, wouldn't you need managed switches, VLANs and another defaultrouter?!

Purko, to define another subnet, wouldn't you need managed switches, VLANs and another defaultrouter?!

You don't need any of that. Unless you want to route between the two subnets, or route to/from the internet.

You could have only one computer attached to the unRAID's second NIC on that subnet, and then all you need is one cable.

If you have more than one computer, you need a simple switch for that subnet.

If you really need to, you could make the unRAID server to act as a router between the two subnets, but I'm sure that's not what you want.

 

But if you have "subnets" you have to route between them. Or do you mean "IP address" on the 2nd interface (on the same network) so that say AV clients access unRAID via the first interface and all other computers via its 2nd, ifconf'ed in the go script?! I guess you mean the later.

 

If setting two subnets for AV clients and computers, traffic must not necessary be routed between them as there is likely no need for the computers to see the AV clients and vice versa. Layer 3 switches can specify a defaultrouter and route between subnets...

 

You could have only one computer attached to the unRAID's second NIC on that subnet, and then all you need is one cable.

If you have more than one computer, you need a simple switch for that subnet.

 

Using VLANs will separate both networks and save the phisically separated switch. Will be logically the same though...

 

 

But if you have "subnets" you have to route between them.

Why do you have to route between them?  They are separate subnets, with completely different IP address ranges.

You could devise a way to route between them if you absolutely have to.  It depends what you need.

 

Layer 3 switches can specify a defaultrouter and route between subnets...

Let's set the terminology for the purposes if this discussion...

Layer 3 is a router.

Layer 2 is a switch.

 

But if you have "subnets" you have to route between them.

Why do you have to route between them?  They are separate subnets, with completely different IP address ranges.

You could devise a way to route between them if you absolutely have to.  It depends what you need.

 

You are right, you don't necessary have to but you probably will because even AV clients need firmware updates and internet connectivity. So, you either double everything (including routers, switches and internet connectivity) and setup two completely separated networks, or route between both subnets, or don't allow things like BD-Live or FW upgrades or internet browsing on the AV clients... which is pretty limiting.

 

So, I still think that for the vast majority of the average user having a single network with a single router and *two* interfaces on unRAID, both configured with different IP addresses but connected to the same network is the best solution for achieving more bandwidth without going into much complexity or imposing limitations. AV clients connect to the 2nd NIC of unRAID; computer clients, etc connect to the first NIC, or vice versa, practically splitting the traffic to both NICs... And it is nice that unRAID will automatically share everything via all NICs found.