Building network (WS + RN)

[lateralustool]

I planning to buy this 3 render nodes (photo). My question is if i will connect WS and RN like in the photo to one 10/100/1000 switch (but router is 10/100) will i have tranfers between WS and RN up to 125 MB/s? (i know cables have to be cat 5e or 6) Or i need also change to the faster gigabit router?

 

Edited August 8, 2014 by lateralustool

[numerobis]

Yes, internal transfer rate will be 1 Gbit. Only if you connect something to the ports of the router (or WLAN) you will get only 100Mbit/s - and of course your i-net connection is also max 100Mbit.

 

But if your data is stored on the NAS this should be also connected to the switch...

Edited August 8, 2014 by numerobis

[lateralustool]

Ok, so great, i don't have to buy new router!

 

So I can plug NAS also to Gigabit switch and i will have faster transfers between computers and storage.

 

I have slower internet than 12,5 MB/sec so router can be 10/100 Mbps.

 

Thanks!

[numerobis]

Yes, if your NAS has also Gbit this should work.

I currently use the same configuration (100Mbit router/1Gbit switch) but with a server (a normal win 7 PC) connected to the switch.

Edited August 8, 2014 by numerobis

[RyderSK]

 

But if your data is stored on the NAS this should be also connected to the switch...

 

All Numerobis said is correct I just wanted to highlight this part because I had a network before with router (upper-end TP-link 1gbit) and switch (unmanaged upper end tplink 1gbit) and I connected my NAS (synology 214+) to router at beginning (it was more convenient in my room setup), and all I had was trouble for some reason. It would work 97perc. of time flawlessly than 3perc. would be odd problems (dropped network when transfering very large files or multiple workstations accesing file,etc..).

Since connecting absolutely everything through switches ( I now have two, original unmanaged for nodes in room with them and managed (only so I could have link aggregation) towards NAS. 100perc. flawless since.

The router is only between optical connection, TV set top box, and to Switch. 1Gbit because I have 250/250mbit connection = )

 

{{had no problem with Cat5E for 1gbit but because I am hardcore OCD at times I upgraded to CAT6 anyway....can't help mysel//offtopic}}

Edited August 9, 2014 by RyderSK

[lateralustool]

Thanks!

 

And what Gigabit 8 port switches You will recommend? TpLink TL-SG108 or TL-SG1008D?

[numerobis]

I have 250/250mbit connection = )

250Mbit symmetrical... very nice - how much do you pay for it. I have 64 Mbit cable and will switch to 150 Mbit next month for 29,40€/month (excl. VAT) but only with 5 Mbit (!) upload. I think a symmetrical connection at arround 100Mbit would cost several hundred €... not sure about the actual prices and what is available here.

[RyderSK]

Thanks!

 

And what Gigabit 8 port switches You will recommend? TpLink TL-SG108 or TL-SG1008D?

 

They use very confusing naming hierarchy, "108" seems better than "1008"Vanilla/D/PE" but the unmanaged I use is "TP-LINK TL-SG1016D",

and it's excellent imho. (and again quite pricier, so I don't understand why the 8port version seems to sit bellow 108 in hierarchy...

 

Out of those two, the first. But with the 108/1008/1008D/etc.. it's so hard to find any difference.. won't matter much I think.

 

250Mbit symmetrical... very nice - how much do you pay for it. I have 64 Mbit cable and will switch to 150 Mbit next month for 29,40€/month (excl. VAT) but only with 5 Mbit (!) upload. I think a symmetrical connection at arround 100Mbit would cost several hundred €... not sure about the actual prices and what is available here.

 

It's from Orange, default optical connection + TV costs 25 euros for and it's 250/100 (was 100/10 last year though), 15 euro premium adds symmetrical 250/250. Quite fair imho and very useful :- )

[numerobis]

Quite fair imho and very useful :- )

i think so... :-D

[TomasEsperanza]

Hi guys,

 

My home-office network is a bit scrappy and needs consolidating, (or at least for me to understand it better). I've got different machines talking to each other in different ways; Wi-Fi and Ethernet. I have just bought a NAS and am unsure how/where best to integrate it into the network. I have:

 

1 x Workstation (connected to internet and Laptop via Wi-Fi)

1 x Rendernode (no internet or Wi-Fi, just connected to WS via Switch)

1 x Laptop (connected to internet and WS via Wi-Fi)

 

1 x NAS (not connected yet)

 

1 x Switch (WS and RN)

1 x Router (Wi-Fi to WS and Laptop)

 

...To complicate matters I'm expecting a new router for faster (fibre) internet service to be delivered/installed within the week! The new router may provide the means to supply my NAS to the network at reasonable speeds (I don't know). I also hope to be able to make the NAS available to the internet for off-site connections (that would be good), but irrespective of the internet it's important that my WS and RN have fast wired access to the NAS.

 

So... Should I connect the NAS to the Switch and connect every machine that needs to see the NAS to the Switch? (no internet for the NAS right?; not good).

Or.. Should I connect the NAS to the Router, and have the Switch wired to the Router separately for the WS and RN to connect to?

 

I do confess, I hate network stuff! :-( I don't get it (and wish I didn't have too)... thing is I need a network! so...

 

...Any knowledgeable guidance would be most helpful, and thoroughly appreciated

 

 

Specs:

 

 

NAS: Synology DS214+

 

https://www.synology.com/en-global/products/DS214+

 

 

CABLES: Cat 6

 

 

SWITCH: Sitecom LN-120 | 5 Port Network Giga Switch

 

https://www.sitecom.com/en/5-port-network-giga-switch/ln-120/p/81

 

 

 

(Current) ROUTER: Technicolor TG582n

 

TG582n Router User Guide:

http://help.demon.net/files/2013/03/TG582n-User-Guide.pdf

 

(Current) Internet Speed:

Download speed = 3220 kbps (403kB/s)

Upload speed = 824 kbps (103kB/s)

 

New Router: ?! no idea

New speed: faster!

[numerobis]

I don't know what your internet speed is, but the WS connected by WLAN is definitely not the best solution. You're limiting your whole workstation connection (LAN and internet) to the WLAN speed.

Just connect everything by cable and it should work. The switch has only 100Mbit ports (if i have got it right - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Technicolour-TG582n-Port-Wireless-Router/dp/B005ELFTH4 ), so you should connect all components to the Gbit switch (router, NAS, WS, RN). Everything is connected to the internet. The router will be limiting you only if you internet speed is higher than 100Mbit. But then your provider should give you a faster modem. It's as simple as that.

Edited January 3, 2015 by numerobis

[RyderSK]

you should connect all components to the Gbit switch (router, NAS, WS, RN)

 

Always this. Even if you would have 1gbit router, prefer using switch as hub between NAS and Workstations, it makes for less potential trouble.

 

Hierarchy:

 

Fibre modem--->Router for internet connection and Wi-fi access--->Switch---->Everything (Workstation, Nodes, etc..)

 

 

And...perhaps buy something with bit more redundancy than 5 port switch. Non-managed switches are pretty cheap so there is no reason to go this low. There are so many potential devices that might eventually end up connecting to it that you will regret going that low rather soon.

 

Also I've never heard about Sitecom brand but it does look quite lousy. You don't need to go all Cisco but general brands like TP-Link, D-Link,etc. are far better and safer choices.

[TomasEsperanza]

Thanks guys! I appreciate the advice.

 

Yes, I know what you mean; it looks cheap. I can probably grab a better quality switch quite easily, the small ones aren't expensive. (although why they charge so much for top end switches I don't know; I mean it's only a switch right?)

 

Having looked at their website, Sitecom seem to be aimed at the "home and small-office" market, which isn't so bad if it's easy and it works. I've never had any issues with the one I have. Is it simply a matter of having enough Ethernet ports, to connect NAS and the computers? Is swapping it for a larger one at a later date problematic for the network, I wonder?

 

Perhaps this one would be ok?

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Linksys-8-Port-Gigabit-Ethernet-Switch/dp/B005123P22/ref=pd_sim_sbs_computers_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=18WVA68NF5CQJHY63N70

 

Incidentally, what about link aggregation? do I just need another cable from the NAS to the switch, or is it more complicated than that?

 

Thanks again lads,

 

T

[RyderSK]

although why they charge so much for top end switches I don't know; I mean it's only a switch right?

 

 

The high-end are smart/"managed" switches, which provide additional features mostly on traffic level for corporate environment, bigger networks.

 

 

 

 

 

although why they charge so much for top end switches I don't know; I mean it's only a switch right?

 

 

Incidentally, what about link aggregation? do I just need another cable from the NAS to the switch, or is it more complicated than that?

 

 

 

 

No, no that easy ;- ). You need ling aggregation preferably on every level (NAS + Switch + WS) to get higher throughput to your workstation, or at least two levels (NAS+ Switch) to increase throughput for the network in case two workstations access files simultaneously.

 

Usually Switches that support LA do only have certain fraction of all ports support the feature, so you would be looking at switch that has at minimimum 4 LA ports, on top of the rest. Now you would be looking towards more expensive options in "managed" territory.

 

{Optionally, you can also connect two cables from NAS into regular switch, and have two IPs for NAS, setting each circle/or PCs in separate network to manually balance network load. But I do not suggest this solution}

[TomasEsperanza]

Very helpful - Cheers Juraj.

 

Does the router need to be "special" to support Link Aggregation, or just the Switch?

[numerobis]

All components that you want to connect using link aggregation need to support it. So, if it is only the NAS you want to connect with two cables, this would be the NAS and the switch. Just to be clear, as Juraj said, LA does not increase your network speed for one connection, but for two simultaneous connections. So to connect the NAS using LA would be the best option to balance the throughput when all clients access at once.

[TomasEsperanza]

All components that you want to connect using link aggregation need to support it. So, if it is only the NAS you want to connect with two cables, this would be the NAS and the switch. Just to be clear, as Juraj said, LA does not increase your network speed for one connection, but for two simultaneous connections. So to connect the NAS using LA would be the best option to balance the throughput when all clients access at once.

 

Yes, presumably in the case of the one man band, this would typically only be when network/distributed rendering, so they can share the central repository without a bottleneck.

[RyderSK]

Just to be clear, as Juraj said, LA does not increase your network speed for one connection, but for two simultaneous connections.

 

No I didn't say that, and while it's true when said like that, it's not technically true completely.

 

While 2 lane aggregation doesn't increase speed of either lane, which are 1Gbit each, the absolute throughput doubles.

In practice what that means for transfer speeds between any clients connected in LA network:

 

A) Only two clients scenario "NAS and Workstation" : Single file will still be downloaded from NAS at speed of 1Gbit limits (120 MB/s +/- ),

but two files will download each at

 

So, while the primary use is often throughput increase along the whole network, so simultaneous client connections don't suffer, it can, and works just as fine to increase transfer speeds across "single" (but multi-lane) connection using trunked nics.

 

{Syntethic benchmarks and certain cases can actually increase transfer speed across multi-lane connection even for single file, but it's not drastic improvement, think +-/ 140-150 MB/s for 2 nics. }

Edited January 4, 2015 by RyderSK

[TomasEsperanza]

So if a motherboard has two Ethernet ports (and supports LA, such the P9X79-WS) it's worth plugging in a cable from each to the switch (?)

Is there anything else one has to do to reap the benefits?

Edited January 4, 2015 by TomasEsperanza

[numerobis]

No I didn't say that, and while it's true when said like that, it's not technically true completely.

...

A) Only two clients scenario "NAS and Workstation" : Single file will still be downloaded from NAS at speed of 1Gbit limits (120 MB/s +/- ),

but two files will download each at

 

So, while the primary use is often throughput increase along the whole network, so simultaneous client connections don't suffer, it can, and works just as fine to increase transfer speeds across "single" (but multi-lane) connection using trunked nics.

 

That's what i said. Two connections from one or two clients is the same - otherwise it would not work at the server/NAS side...

I just meant that the server would be my first option because this connection normally is the biggest bottleneck if you work with more than one client. Sure, you can always add more connections to other clients, if there are enough ports...

 

Is there anything else one has to do to reap the benefits?

 

The switch has to support it and you have to enable it on both sides.

[TomasEsperanza]

Sounds like the thing to do is buy a good brand of switch with a minimum of 8 ports that supports LA. Use two cat 6 cables for each workstation and each node into the switch. Additionally If the router supports LA then one can add two cables between it and the switch. Then the "enabling" process presumably means adjusting various network settings on each device (?).

 

Is the enabling process of Link Aggregation something that is quite simple, or is it a real minefield to be avoided by a novice network admin (one arch-viz guy) such as myself?

 

Having Googled it, the LA information I found was mostly theoretical, and I'm guessing a lot of us just want to know which check-box to tick in order for our Network to behave as desired. How did you guys figure out this stuff; did you study it academically, or just figure it out on the job?

 

(Because, I have a thirst for knowledge that sometimes takes me into areas that I may be better off paying someone else to do, so I can focus on my strengths. Knowing when to DIY can be difficult, but generally I think it's good to give it a go.)

 

New NAS, New Internet Service, New Router, New Switch, New Network licences.... God help me! this is gonna get messy!

Edited January 5, 2015 by TomasEsperanza

[Nils Norgren]

Link aggregation is definitely a plausible strategy if your switch supports it, the switch needs to be a managed and support link aggregation, which adds to the cost.

 

I am not a network administrator but I have managed IT for years, there are ways to make a network faster, and optimize parts to get higher throughput. I don't think it is worth it until you find a bottleneck and it affects production.

 

When we got our first farm and were running a simple network, everything hummed along nicely. Then an animation job came along where the max files were big, and the attached assets were huge (this was well over a decade ago and before gig networking) when a network rendering job was set off, the render nodes all pulled the same assets through the network simultaneously, the whole thing would come to a grinding halt. The first frame would take hours to come out of the farm, and after assets had loaded the remaining frames would take a small fraction of what the first frame took to render. This situation caused us to invest in networking technologies, server topologies and rendering management software, but only after the problem presented itself.

 

Long story short, build as simple a network as possible, make sure it is secure, then after using it, if there are bottlenecks, address them but don't overbuild.

 

-Nils Norgren

[elipan]

I planning to buy this 3 render nodes (photo). My question is if i will connect WS and RN like in the photo to one 10/100/1000 switch (but router is 10/100) will i have tranfers between WS and RN up to 125 MB/s? (i know cables have to be cat 5e or 6) Or i need also change to the faster gigabit router?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51730[/ATTACH]

 

You NAS must be connected to a 1000 port.

You don't really want your WS to scan your NAS for textures at ~12MB/s instead of ~120MB/s.

[numerobis]

Sounds like the thing to do is buy a good brand of switch with a minimum of 8 ports that supports LA. Use two cat 6 cables for each workstation and each node into the switch. Additionally If the router supports LA then one can add two cables between it and the switch. Then the "enabling" process presumably means adjusting various network settings on each device (?).

 

Is the enabling process of Link Aggregation something that is quite simple, or is it a real minefield to be avoided by a novice network admin (one arch-viz guy) such as myself?

How you enable it depends on the brand of the switch and network cards. There are several videos tutorials on youtube where you can see how it works for different models, like these

Maybe you should watch this first to see if it is ok for you.

And here is expained how it should work for your Asus P9X79 WS

http://www.asus.com/support/FAQ/1002764/

 

And i think you should buy CAT 6a to be ready for 10Gbit in the future (or CAT 7, but 6a is enough and CAT 7 still too expensive)

Edited January 6, 2015 by numerobis

[TomasEsperanza]

Good stuff! Nice one Numerobis