Understand you are going to be restricted by your internet bandwidth in this instance. a T1 line is 1.54 Mbps. Dsl is generally not much higher, lets say 7Mbps for the sake of argument.
Your internal network is either 100Mbps or 1Gbps (1000). You used the pipe analogy. Your pipe out of the building is so much smaller then the pipes in the building that optimizing anything inside for network traffic is irrelevant. ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:40 PM To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Quick zone-networking question. I wasn't going to bother with a switch because we're only going to have this one server and one other workstation connected with wired networking in this remote location. This is going in a guest house, to serve our various websites, and some other applications we'd like to make available for our own use when we're out on the road. Any other computers guests might bring there would connect wirelessly. Oh, and we make a lot of videos. We may start hosting those on this server at some point, too. I was thinking more in terms of what would be the best way to get the internet traffic in and out of this server -- no other internal organizational network involved -- whether using two nics would be better than just one. I was thinking we'd buy a block of five static IP addresses from the phone company. One would go to the router. One or two to the server. The rest would be unused, for possible future needs. We'd use ipfilter for port forwarding the various services to the correct zones. I was thinking in real simple terms here, because I'm not much of a networker: put some zones on one nic, and some on the other. I guess what I'm concerned with is that I don't want to run into a bottleneck between the server and the router. I can't do much between the rest of it - between the router and modem and the internet. The router we're planning to use does not support IEEE 802.3ad link aggregation. I suppose that if we needed to get a different router, we could. And I think link aggregation might be within my abilities. IPMP looks a bit more challenging. So, is trying to avoid a bottleneck between the server and the router what you would consider internal or external? I'd just like to make sure that when I set this up, I do it in a way that if things get way busier than they are now, that the network and server can handle it -- especially if we start hosting the videos. On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Grant Albitz wrote: > First ask yourself are you trying to increase bandwidth internally or > externally. Your single 100/1000 Mbps ethernet line is not going to be a > bottleneck for a 1.5Mbps t1 or any DSL line so if the answer is external than > there is no point in doing anything. > > If you are worried about internal traffic then you could possibly give > yourself more bandwidth by segmenting the traffic. Just keep in mind that > having 2 lines doesn't mean you are getting twice the bandwidth, but you > could have some services bound to the one link/ip and some to the others. > > > Your simple diagram doesn't depict a switch, if you were utilizing some form > of lacp or etherchannel with a switch you could take 2 lines and bond them, > but even then there are algorithms involved for how the traffic is load > balanced and most of these result in a single host using only one path. If > you were serving hundreds of workstations or your load actually does saturate > a 1Gbps line then there is some benefit to teaming the adapters. Again that > is purely for internal traffic only and you need capable hardware. > > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:26 PM > To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana > Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Quick zone-networking question. > > Hi, all. > > This is probably a stupid question, but suppose we have a modem for a DSL or > T1 line, and attached to it is a router, and attached to it is a server with > two network cards. And suppose I was to connect both network cards to the > router. So we have something like this: > > Modem > | > Router > | | > Server > > I was thinking to have our apache web server, email, and whatever other zones > on one network card, and perhaps put our tomcat zone on the other, in my > mind, to balance the load. I was thinking since the web apps that we'll run > on tomcat will be using ajax, it might like more bandwidth. > > I've always thought of networking like pipes of water -- except it's data. I > don't know how valid that is. But when I look at this, it seems like I have > two pipes going into the router, and if that pipe going from the router to > the modem is the same size, I wouldn't really get any benefit from doing this. > > Am I right? Should I not bother using both network cards like this? > > I'm at the point where I'm done "playing" (i.e. testing), and am putting all > this stuff together now. > > Thanks. > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > _______________________________________________ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
