Re: Alternative To Multihoming DC/DNS Servers?

> There are 5 servers. 3 are DC's and 2 of the DCs are file servers.
> Two of the DCs are DNS and one of the DCs is dhcp.
> They are multihomed with one nic connected to the 10/100 production
> network and the second nic connected to the small gigabit network used
> exclusively for backups.
>
> The production network has everything else, about 400 regular office
> users, some database servers, everything else.
> It is much too slow to backup the file server over the production
> network because the production network is 10/100 speed. So, a small
> gigabit switch (on a different subnet) was purchased so the servers
> can run their backups at gigabit speed. The company is not going to
> replace the 10/100 switches used for the production network with
> gigabit switches because of of the cost, so just dumping the old
> switches and replacing them with gigabit switches so the servers could
> use 1 nic each is not an available solution. Without spending
> thousands of dollars that are not available, what other solution is
> there?
>

The major problem with the setup you describe was touched on in a
previous post. Just having the second NICs connected doesn't mean that they
will actually be used. You need to be very careful when setting up a second
network in that fashion.

For your setup to work, all your backups must use the IP address of the
1G NIC, not the 10/100. That is hard to pull off, because each server now
has two IP addresses associated with its name. How can you ensure that the
backups will always use the 1G NIC but everything else uses the 10/100 LAN
NIC?

You need to completely hide the IP addresses on the 1G NICs from DNS
and/or WINS on the LAN or you strike all the usual multihoming problems on
your DC/DNS servers. But once you do that, how will the backup software find
them?

"MyGposts" <> wrote in message
news:2515bc81-800c-416a-9e04-...
On Nov 9, 7:14 pm, "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote:

I just thought of something that might be a solution. Would buying an
8 port router with built-in gigabit switch work by plugging the 5
servers into the new router (eliminating mulithoming by using only a
single gigabit NIC in each server) and then plugging the WAN/Uplink
port of that router into one of the ports on the 10/100 production
network?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Routers are not switches,...switches are not routers. Even if it is a
Layer3 Switch the Layer3 routing abilties and how you deal with them are
kept separate and distince from the Layer2 functionality of the Switch.

So if you mean Switch,...then yes it would work. In fact mine is
effectively that way,...it is a Layer3 Switch, but I treat, discuss,
describe, and acknowledge the Layer2 -vs- Layer3 abilities separately as if
it were two separate devices. The Layer3 Routing abilties have nothing to
do with what you are suggesting here and could remain disabled.

If you are thinking of a "home-user NAT box" as a router with a gigabit
switch then we aren't on the same planet. Yes the "switch" portion of the
thing would theoretically do that (leaving the WAN port unused) but it would
be a really crappy way to approach it.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

> I just thought of something that might be a solution. Would buying an
> 8 port router with built-in gigabit switch work by plugging the 5
> servers into the new router (eliminating mulithoming by using only a
> single gigabit NIC in each server) and then plugging the WAN/Uplink
> port of that router into one of the ports on the 10/100 production
> network?
> I would think the servers would be able to transfer data to each over
> at gigabit speeds and the router would allow them to still communicate
> with the rest of the network on the 10/100 network without the slower
> 10/100 network slowing down backups.
>
> Would we even need another router or would should the existing gigabit
> switch work as long as all the servers are directly plugged into the
> same gigabit switch?
>

Running the servers in a gigabit network with just one NIC each would be
a reasonable thing to do. That gives you a fast connection between servers.

To make it work in a satisfactory way would require a LAN router to
route between the gigabit server network and the 10/100 LAN network. As
Phillip pointed out you would need a "real" LAN router and a "real" switch,
not a SOHO NAT device.

"MyGposts" <> wrote in message
news:762d6341-b5e0-44ce-b938-...
On Nov 11, 2:09 am, "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote:

I just realized that this may not work because there would not be
enough bandwidth available through a single 100MB port connecting the
GB switch to the 10/100 switch the rest of the domain is on. It would
be a bottleneck there for all the clients on the 10/100 network to all
come in through 1 single port to communicate with the servers on GB
switch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No that is a misconception. One port is all they ever had in the first
place and 10/100 hosts will never go faster than 10/100 anyway.

Now with most switches (that are worth having) there is a fast Gigabit port
(often 2) that are used for the Backbone link between the switches while the
Hosts all use the 10/100 ports. So if the Switch used by the Servers is all
Gig on all ports then you only need one Gigabit port (maybe inserable
module) on the other Switch it connects to.


<servers>
|
[full Gig Switch]
|
[10/100 Switch with Gig backbone port]
|
<other hosts on the LAN>

I run a whole TV Station (gobs of equipment) with 10/100 to the desktops &
equipment,...then run a Gigabit backbone between the Switches using an
insertable Gigabit module in the Switches. Some Severs plug into a Gigabit
port on the Primary Switch which is a Layer3 Switch doubling as the LAN
Router and is physically near to the Servers.

The 10/100 part of it actually has a "trottleing effect" that helps keep the
Backbone from getting overloaded which it might do if every thing was Gigbit
everywhere. For example 10 users running at 100mbps can hit the Backbone
at the same time which totals 1 Gig,...but if the users were running at 1
Gig then one user can fill the Backbone. Remember that the goal is not
always *transfer rate*,...it is also about how many can use the system at
the same time without it choking up.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"MyGposts" <> wrote in message
news:75f8ed5d-5d8e-4edd-9fb3-...

The backbone is 10/100, so the domain clients could choke that
connection to the server's gigabit switch very easily. We may look to
see if it is possible to purchase a gigabit module for the slower
switch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It probably wouldn't choke as easy as you think, you'd be surprised. It'd
take a handfull of huge file copies/moves all happening together before you
would notice it. But anyway, yes, you should see if your Switch can take a
Gigbit module or replce the Switch with one that can.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------