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.

Again, all depends on what you need. If you need internet connectivity on that second subnet,

then you can make the unRAID server do some packet routing between its two interfaces. (be a router)

 

 

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...

You can't do such setup.  Attempting that would bring a disaster.  Seriously, think about it.

 

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...

You can't do such setup.  Attempting that would bring a disaster.  Seriously, think about it.

 

Why not? If he connects to the server by ip instead of server name..

Purko, what is the difference between having both NICs on the same or on different subnets?

Purko, what is the difference between having both NICs on the same or on different subnets?

To everybody on that same network it will look like two different computers are broadcasting and advertising services while using the same name.

That will cause havoc.  Nobody does that.  (Just imagine the fun if unRAID is the Master Browser on that subnet, it will see ghosts of itself and try talk to itself, LOL even compete in the MB election with itself)

 

But no need to ask me.  Go ahead and experiment.

 

Each NIC has its own name sepcified in LMHOSTS or /etc/hosts on the clients, or just accessing, two unRAID boxes by its own IP sharing same disk paths. Don't see a problem. I've done this between Linux and Mac clients, no problems at all, what you mean exactly??? Perhaps you are talking Windows only?

 

Anyway, I would set this up using VLANs to separate both data and video subnets (but still use same physical infrastructure) and using defaultrouter setting in layer 3 switches and route outgoing traffic to a single external router. Actually I would add a 3rd subnet for the audio-only Squeezebox clients, totally aggregating traffic and using 3x GigE interfaces on unRAID (backup, video and audio are on separated disks anyway). All going through ProCurve switches.

 

Anyway, I would set this up using VLANs to separate both data and video subnets (but still use same physical infrastructure) and using defaultrouter setting in layer 3 switches and route outgoing traffic to a single external router. Actually I would add a 3rd subnet for the audio-only Squeezebox clients, totally aggregating traffic and using 3x GigE interfaces on unRAID (backup, video and audio are on separated disks anyway). All going through ProCurve switches.

My head is still spinning from reading and rereading the above.  I am seriously cheering for you.  Make it work and give a detailed report.

 

Anyway, I would set this up using VLANs to separate both data and video subnets (but still use same physical infrastructure) and using defaultrouter setting in layer 3 switches and route outgoing traffic to a single external router. Actually I would add a 3rd subnet for the audio-only Squeezebox clients, totally aggregating traffic and using 3x GigE interfaces on unRAID (backup, video and audio are on separated disks anyway). All going through ProCurve switches.

My head is still spinning from reading and rereading the above.  I am seriously cheering for you.  Make it work and give a detailed report.

 

This is exactly what you have suggested earlier but instead of using an extra small switch without routing to separate both subnets, I would use VLANs to separate subnets, each its own address range. Only addition is routing. Smaller setups may use something like TRENDnet TWG-BRF114 wired router which adds GigE even to its WAN port, so combining your small switch with routing capability instead of routing on unRAID. Do you see a pitfall?

 

Anyway, I would set this up using VLANs to separate both data and video subnets (but still use same physical infrastructure) and using defaultrouter setting in layer 3 switches and route outgoing traffic to a single external router. Actually I would add a 3rd subnet for the audio-only Squeezebox clients, totally aggregating traffic and using 3x GigE interfaces on unRAID (backup, video and audio are on separated disks anyway). All going through ProCurve switches.

My head is still spinning from reading and rereading the above.  I am seriously cheering for you.  Make it work and give a detailed report.

This is exactly what you have suggested earlier...

Did I suggest all that?    WOW!  I can't beleive myself. 

 

...but instead of using an extra small switch without routing to separate both subnets, I would use VLANs to separate subnets, each its own address range. Only addition is routing. Smaller setups may use something like TRENDnet TWG-BRF114 wired router which adds GigE even to its WAN port, so combining your small switch with routing capability instead of routing on unRAID.

Do you see a pitfall?

Yes, I do.  By hooking things up the way you describe you create loops.  Bad idea.

 

But don't mind me. If you've seen something like that to work, what does it matter what I think?

I just gave two examples of real working setups. There are certainly more than two ways to setup networks.

Make your idea work, and document it here as a real working example.  I'd love to hear all the details.

 

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.

 

You are my hero.  I was about to post a new thread asking exactly this question.  All my media streamers have no business being on the internet, and in fact for the sake of security, I don't want them to have access.  I just assumed that the second nic was useless because of all the talk about aggregation in other threads.  Am I correct in assuming the only reason unRAID needs to be able to access the internet is to send alert emails and vpn?  If that's the case, I need to tell my firewall to block all incoming traffic to the server, since I won't vpn outside my network to the box.  I'm on a security kick right now. 

You would block all access to unRAID from the internet. Outgoing depends whether you want to do upgrades (open http port 80) and use time servers (port 123 both tcp/udp). Email is on port 25 (SMTP) but depending on your configuration maybe on 465, 587, 995 or other non-standard port. I would in general allow outgoing traffic especially if you are not a security expert.

 

 

Out of the box unRAID doesn't do any upgrades from the Internet, so it doesn't require any Internet connectivity.

 

If you enable the NTP daemon on your unRAID server then it will need to somehow contact NTP server(s).

You may have a NTP service running on some other computer on your local network, and unRAID can connect to it.

 

I'm about to implement a pfSense firewall, and I'm pretty sure I can get NTP from that.  The only concern I had was email alerts from unRAID getting out, but as Starcat said, that's easy enough to open 25 outbound from a static internal IP address.  I just hadn't built a separate subnet because I assumed my second NIC was useless.  Now it appears that was incorrect. 

I'm about to implement a pfSense firewall, and I'm pretty sure I can get NTP from that.  The only concern I had was email alerts from unRAID getting out, but as Starcat said, that's easy enough to open 25 outbound from a static internal IP address.

That is veering a little off topic, as the above considerations equally apply to one-NIC unRAIDs.

 

That is veering a little off topic, as the above considerations equally apply to one-NIC unRAIDs.

I apologize, as that was not my intent.

But don't mind me. If you've seen something like that to work, what does it matter what I think?

I just gave two examples of real working setups. There are certainly more than two ways to setup networks.

Make your idea work, and document it here as a real working example.  I'd love to hear all the details.

 

Ok, I have got this working very elegantly.

 

Using three interfaces with the unRAID server now! Each on a different subnet. They get activated in the go script via ifconfig. No other changes to unRAID, no IP forwarding, no Masquerading, etc. Each interface goes to its own VLAN on the switches. The switches are then connected to a MikroTik GigE router (RB450G, RB750G, RB1000G will all do this). It can bridge several subnets with the WAN, has VLAN support, may bridge physical interfaces to VLANs to its WAN port, supports trunks to the switches, many more. Setting it up however fairly simple and also to maximize performance, each subnet gets its own iterface going to a VLAN on the switches. All clients from all subnets are able to access the internet but can't see members of other subnets. They get maximum performance from unRAID via dedicated links. A forth subnet is planned for a DMZ.

 

 

Another intersting option would be to connect two unRAID together using their second port.

Using three interfaces with the unRAID server now! Each on a different subnet. They get activated in the go script via ifconfig. No other changes to unRAID, no IP forwarding, no Masquerading, etc. Each interface goes to its own VLAN on the switches. The switches are then connected to a MikroTik GigE router (RB450G, RB750G, RB1000G will all do this). It can bridge several subnets with the WAN, has VLAN support, may bridge physical interfaces to VLANs to its WAN port, supports trunks to the switches, many more. Setting it up however fairly simple and also to maximize performance, each subnet gets its own iterface going to a VLAN on the switches. All clients from all subnets are able to access the internet but can't see members of other subnets. They get maximum performance from unRAID via dedicated links. A forth subnet is planned for a DMZ.

 

That's a sweet setup.  Be very sure that you really want to open DMZ though, as all script kiddies will be in your server in no time.

 

As the discussion was somewhat originally a discussion the use of the 2nd interface, I just thought I'd drop in my current use... I have a crossover between the unRAID box and my main download server, they're configured with static IPs on a 192.168.25.0/30 subnet, I have the shares mounted via NFS over that connection...

 

Of course, when I take this box to a LAN party, I'll be using the separate port for the hosting of my game servers...

That's a sweet setup.  Be very sure that you really want to open DMZ though, as all script kiddies will be in your server in no time.

 

You are right Purko, have to think about this once more. The MikroTik has generally a SPI firewall and RouterOS is very good at that. I would run a dedicated cable from the MikroTik to the web server which will be on a separate subnet. No access from this machine to anywhere else.