Teaming

[jathor]

I have many options with my intel network card, what's the difference between link aggregation and adaptive load balancing? (when i select either it gives me 2gbps speeds). But which one is actually faster/better and what do they do?

 

thanks guys

[Prastupok]

Link aggregation is the RAID of networking, numerous ethernet ports.

 

Load balancing is spreading a network's load across the board, balancing it out.

[Z3R0C00L]

Both are technically the same thing 
Link aggregation will send half of the traffic on one link and the other half on the other (Use both link at the same time).
The Intel adaptive load balancing will use one link at its full capacity before starting to use the 2nd one.

 

 

[Prastupok]

Both are technically the same thing 

Link aggregation will send half of the traffic on one link and the other half on the other (Use both link at the same time).

The Intel adaptive load balancing will use one link at its full capacity before starting to use the 2nd one.

 

That isn't how load balancing works...

 

"In computing, load balancing distributes workloads across multiple computing resources, such as computers, a computer cluster, network links, central processing units or disk drives. Load balancing aims to optimize resource use, maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload of any single resource. Using multiple components with load balancing instead of a single component may increase reliability through redundancy. Load balancing usually involves dedicated software or hardware, such as a multilayer switch or a Domain Name System server process."

 

Source

[Z3R0C00L]

That isn't how load balancing works...

 

"In computing, load balancing distributes workloads across multiple computing resources, such as computers, a computer cluster, network links, central processing units or disk drives. Load balancing aims to optimize resource use, maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload of any single resource. Using multiple components with load balancing instead of a single component may increase reliability through redundancy. Load balancing usually involves dedicated software or hardware, such as a multilayer switch or a Domain Name System server process."

 

Source

Well i guess you can't read because this is exactly what I wrote

BUT THE INTEL version of adaptative load balancing is using one link until full then switch over to the second link.

Also read the whole page of your own source ... you might need it

[Prastupok]

Well i guess you can't read because this is exactly what I wrote

BUT THE INTEL version of adaptative load balancing is using one link until full then switch over to the second link.

Also read the whole page of your own source ... you might need it

 

I suggest you read what I posted...

 

"maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload of any single resource"

 

They wouldn't max out one connection and then move on to another... That isn't balanced at all.

 

Aggregation is on one card, load balancing is over an entire network.

[Z3R0C00L]

I suggest you read what I posted...

 

"maximize throughput, minimize response time, and avoid overload of any single resource"

 

They wouldn't max out one connection and then move on to another... That isn't balanced at all.

 

Aggregation is on one card, load balancing is over an entire network.

 

In computer networking, the term link aggregation applies to various methods of combining (aggregating) multiple network connections in parallel in order to increase throughput beyond what a single connection could sustain, and to provide redundancy in case one of the links should fail.

Regardless of the layer on which aggregation occurs, it balances the network load across all links. Most methods provide failover as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation

 

 

Yes you are right with the definition of load balancing BUT AGAIN INTEL VERSION OF ADAPTATIVE LOAD BALANCING 

INTEL VERSION

INTEL VERSION

I dont care how wikipedia defines load balancing its not how intel version does it.

Several carrier pay per LINK which means they will use one link at full capacity before switching to another one (BECAUSE COSTS)

 

[Prastupok]

 

In computer networking, the term link aggregation applies to various methods of combining (aggregating) multiple network connections in parallel in order to increase throughput beyond what a single connection could sustain, and to provide redundancy in case one of the links should fail.

Regardless of the layer on which aggregation occurs, it balances the network load across all links. Most methods provide failover as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation

 

 

Yes you are right with the definition of load balancing BUT AGAIN INTEL VERSION OF ADAPTATIVE LOAD BALANCING 

INTEL VERSION

INTEL VERSION

I dont care how wikipedia defines load balancing its not how intel version does it.

Several carrier pay per LINK which means they will use one link at full capacity before switching to another one (BECAUSE COSTS)

 

 

 

First off, calm down with the caps. It's unnecessary. He asked about the definitions, and while they are similar, they are for different scale deployments.

 

I understand he said Intel, I did read the post.

 

• Adaptive Load Balancing (ALB)

  Offers increased network bandwidth by allowing transmission over 2-8 ports to multiple destination addresses, and incorporates Adapter Fault Tolerance. Only the primary adapter receives incoming traffic. Broadcasts/multicasts and non-routed protocols are only transmitted via the primary adapter in the team. The Intel® ANS software load balances transmissions, based on Destination Address, and can be used with any switch. Simultaneous transmission only occurs at multiple addresses. This mode can be connected to any switch.

That's straight off of Intel's site.

 

Link aggregation is using multiple ports for throughput more than redundancy.

Balancing makes transmission and receives go different routes.

 

It isn't the same thing though, sorry. 

 

And what "carrier" are you talking about that pay per link? You could have an internal server with absolutely no outside connection and still need balancing, especially moving large amounts of data across servers.

[Z3R0C00L]

First off, calm down with the caps. It's unnecessary. He asked about the definitions, and while they are similar, they are for different scale deployments.

 

I understand he said Intel, I did read the post.

 

• Adaptive Load Balancing (ALB)

  Offers increased network bandwidth by allowing transmission over 2-8 ports to multiple destination addresses, and incorporates Adapter Fault Tolerance. Only the primary adapter receives incoming traffic. Broadcasts/multicasts and non-routed protocols are only transmitted via the primary adapter in the team. The Intel® ANS software load balances transmissions, based on Destination Address, and can be used with any switch. Simultaneous transmission only occurs at multiple addresses. This mode can be connected to any switch.

That's straight off of Intel's site.

 

Link aggregation is using multiple ports for throughput more than redundancy.

Balancing makes transmission and receives go different routes.

 

It isn't the same thing though, sorry. 

 

And what "carrier" are you talking about that pay per link? You could have an internal server with absolutely no outside connection and still need balancing, especially moving large amounts of data across servers.

Thank you for confirming exactly what I said since the begining !

[Prastupok]

Thank you for confirming exactly what I said since the begining !

 

Similar is not the same. One is for safety, the other is for throughput. You said they are the same ("they are technically the same thing"), and they aren't.

 

@jathor for personal use, neither one is necessary. 

[jathor]

Similar is not the same. One is for safety, the other is for throughput. You said they are the same ("they are technically the same thing"), and they aren't.

 

@jathor for personal use, neither one is necessary. 

 

basically what I would like is to get the fastest speed from the (home/media) server in order to watch multiple hd streams of movies and music from it (multiple people living with me who have a thirst for movies/shows/music) and transfer files to and from it without affecting (or not affecting much) the speed and/or quality of the stream.

[Scheer]

basically what I would like is to get the fastest speed from the (home/media) server in order to watch multiple hd streams of movies and music from it (multiple people living with me who have a thirst for movies/shows/music) and transfer files to and from it without affecting (or not affecting much) the speed and/or quality of the stream.

 

It still likely isn't needed, can your router monitor your LAN bandwidth? I'd check that and see if you are maxing 1Gbps before spending any money/time on upgrading.

 

I have LAG going to my server and out to my workshop simply because I didn't already have the hardware and I only ended up spending $30 more to get switches with LAG capability. I never would have messed with it if I already had switches in place.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe the "typical" HD stream is around 7MBps, so even if you had 5 people watching different movies at the same time you would have 90MBps of overhead which is only going to be a noticeable bottleneck if you do a lot of sequential transfers, use SSDs on both ends, or have a nice RAID setup.